AD-A263 099JIill 11, l l l I' 1 1i1 Report No. COELMN/PD-93/03

U.S. Army Corpsof EngineersNew Orleans District

CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OFCARROLLTON BEND REVETMENT,MISSISSIPPI RIVER M-105.7 TO 101.7-.,JEFFERSON AND ORLEANS PARISHES, LOUISIANA

February 1993

FINAL REPORT DTIC,CT,

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. SAPR 0 9930

5824 Plauche Street

New Orleans, LA 70123

PREPARED FOR:

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersNew Orleans District-.....-P.O. Box 60267New Orleans, LA 70160-0267

Unclassified. Distribution is unlimited. 93-08248c' g•4

93 4 .19 152 ,j, ., 1, .. , 1111

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 7kIS PAGE

Form ApprovedJREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 0BN 74O~

Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSiFiCAION lb RESRiC';VE MARKINGS

2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORIT'r 3 DISTRIBUTiONiAVAiLA84UTY OF REPORT

2b.ODECLASSIFiCATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Unclassified. Distribution is unlimi ted.

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONiTORLNG ORGANIZATION REPORT NuMBER(S;

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6 OFFICE SYMBOL 7a, NAME OF MONiTORiNG ORGANIZATION

R.Christopher Goodwin & 1 i applicable) U.S. Army Cor ps of EngineersAs.sociates. Inc. JNew Orleans Di strict

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City,, State, and ZIP Cod*)

5824 Plauche Street P.O. Box 60267New Orleans, LA 70123 New Orleans, LA 70160-0267

8a. NAME OF FUNDING i SPONSORING 18b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROC'uREMENT INSTRUMEýNT iDENTiFICAIO-N NQVBERORGANIZATION U. S. COE (if applicable) DACW 29-90- D- 0018

New Orleans District jCELMN-PD-RN Delivery Order No. 00118c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PROORA Bo 60267C ITS IWA KUIP..Bx627ELEMENT NO NO, I O 1 . SSION NO

New Orleans, LA 70160-0267 N/A CIVIL WORI4S FUNDINO CC

11. TITLE (include Security Classification)CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF CARROLLTON BEND REVETMENT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER M-105.7 TO 101.7-L,JEFFERSON AND ORLEANS PARISHES, LOUISIANA

12-PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) Stephen Hinks, Paul V. Heinrich, Ralph Draughon, Jr., Susan Barrett Smith,Jepnniter Cohen. and William P. Athens

13a. TYPE OF REPORT j13b. TIME COVERED 19 114, DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day)1 PAE COUNTFinal IFROM 19 TO,.~i 1993, February 26 T7 9!4

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Canrolfton, Louismiaa Jeffeson, Paris Now Oriawwan " arvolon Railroad 90.Ahpo'. Louulana

Ca~rolftoi, HoWe and Gardera LaBmnri famity Nowr Oftans, Lwouisaa WWMnA q~r-" ~f'Hrslonc amctaoimg um"w Street ori.am Parish

19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

This report presents results of Phase I/Il archeological survey of the Carrollton Bend levetment, Jefferson and Orteant4 parishes,Louisiana. The project was undertaken by P.. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., fot the U.S. Ar~my Corps of Engineers, NewOrlears District, prior to planned extension of the Carrollton Bend Revetment. A tote of 70 ac were examined for culftural resources,Fieldwork consisted of pedestrian survey augmented by systematic and judgmental excavation of 86 auger tests and one, I x 2 mnunit within the survey area. One cultural resource location, Location 1, was identified during survey. Location 1 contained analignment of brick piers; the remains were not in situ. AdIditional testing demonstrated that these piers were deposited after WorldWar 1I, and probably served to limit nivetine cutting. The deposits lacked archeological integrity and research potential; in addition,they did not warrant designation as an archeological site. The location does not possess th. qualities of significance as definedby National Register of Historic Places criteria (36 CFR 80.4 fa-d]). No additional archeological testing within the Carrollton BendPlevetment survey area is recommended.

20. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 121 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION__RUNCLASSIFIED/IUNLIMITED El SAME AS RPT. 0 DTIC USERS I Unclassified

22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 122 b TELEPHONE (Include Arts Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLHoward Bush 504-862-2550 FCELMN-PDRN

00DForm 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsoetre. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

i

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYNEw ORLEANS ODSTRCT CORPS OF ENGCINEERS

PO BOX 60267

NIEW ORLEANS LOL~tSLANA 7046-0267

REPLY TOATTNTIO OFJanuary 22, 19Q3

Planning DivisionEnvironmental Analysis Branch

To The Reader:

This cultural resources effort was designed, funded, andguided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans Districtas part of our cultural resources ma-.agement program. The workdocumented in this report was performed to provide informat....needed to assess cultural resource impacts which could result- fro.construction of the upstream extension of the Carrollton BendRevetment Item whicn is part of the Mississippi River andTributaries Project.

This report has been reviewed and accepted by the New OrleansDistrict. We commend the contractor's efforts and carefulscholarship.

Howard R. Bush "R. H.Schroeder, Jr.Authorized Representative Chief, Planning Division-

of the Contracting Officer

ii

CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OFCARROLLTON BEND REVETMENT,

MISSISSIPPI RIVER M-105.7 TO 101.7-L,JEFFERSON AND ORLEANS PARISHES, LOUISIANA

FINAL REPORT

R. Chrs Ph.D.

By

Stephen Hinks, Paul V. Heinrich, Ralph Draughon, Jr.,Susan Barrett Smith, Jennifer Cohen, and William P. Athens

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.5824 Plauche Street

New Orleans, L A 70123

February 1993

For

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersNew Orleans District

P.O. Box 60267New Orleans, LA 70160-0267

Report No. COELMN/PD-93/03

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ..............

LETTER TO THE READER ............ . ii

TITLE PAGE ......................................................... iii

UST OF FIGURES ....................................................... vi

UST OF TABLES ....................................................... vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................... viii

INTRODUCTION ..................................... ................ 1Organization of the Report ......... ................... ........ ......... 1

11. NATURAL SETTING .............................................. 3Introduction ........................................................ 3P hysiog raphy ... .. . ... .. . .. ... ....... .. ..... .. .. .. . .... .. . .. .. . ... . .. .. .. 3Geomorphology ........................ .......................... 3

Delta Complexes ................................................... 4Fluvial Complex ................................................... 5

G eolog y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6G eom orphic Terranes ...................................................... 7Paleogeography ........................................................ 8

Wisconsinan Stage ...................................................... 9Holocene Epoch ................................................... 9

G eoarcheolog y .......................................................... 12Historic Bankline Changes in the Project Area Vicinity ..................... 12Fauna and Flora ......................................................... 14C lim ate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Ill. PREHISTORIC SETTING ................................................. 16Introduction ....................................... .............. 16Troyville-Coles Creek Culture (A.D. 400 - 1100) ............................ ...... 16Plaquemine Culture (A.D. 1100 - 1600) ...................................... . 17Mississippian Culture (A.D. 1100 - 1700) ....... .... .......................... 18Historic Contact ................... . -............... ............... 18

IV. CARROLLTON BEND: THE PROJECT AREA IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE .......... 20Introduction ........... ......... ....................................... 20French Occupancy of the Project Area, 1719 - 1724 ............................... 20The Carrollton Area, 1728 - 1831 ............................................. 20The Tchoupitoulas Settlements, 1719 - 1836 ..................................... 21Economic Development in the Project Area and Vicinity, 1728 - 1836 ................... 23Incursions of the River at Carrollton Bend and Nearby ............................. 23Vanished Structures at the Macarty Plantation, 1803 - 1863 . ....................... 23

iv

The de BorO Plantation, 1781 - 1834 ................. ..... . .. 24The Development of Carrollton ............. . . . .......... . ... 24

Origin of the Name ................................... ...... 24The Sale of Lots In Carrollton ................. ....... 24The Railroad to Carrollton . ......... ........... 25Carrollton Hotel and Gardens ...... ............... ........ 25

Samuel Short, An Early Settler in Carrollton ................... . 26The Lumber Industry in Carrollton ......... ................ ...... ....... .. 26The Jefferson and Lake Pontchartrain Railroad .............................. .. 26Steamboat Landing, Ferries, and Waterborne Commerce ........................... 26Levee Street ............................................................ 27The CMI War In the Project Area ...................... .................. 27

Construction of Fort Morgan ................................. 27Union Occupation of Fort Parapet ..................................... 28Employment of African American Soldiers at Camp Parapet ..................... 29

The East Bank of the River above Carrollton ..... .... .. ...............Sugar Planting Along the East Bank .......................... 31

Other Developments Along the East Bank ................................. . 32Economic Development in the Project Area, 1836 - Twentieth Century ................. 32Carrollton Bend Revetment ......................................... ....... 33The Mississippi River Commission Map, 1921 .............................. .. 33The Potential for Archeological Resources within the Project Area .................... 34

V. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ............................................... 36Previous Cultural Resources Surveys in the Vicinity of the Project Area ...... 36Previously Recorded Archeological Sites and National Register Propertiesnear the Project Area .................................... ................. 37

VI. M ETH O D S .................................... ....................... 39Field M ethods ........................................................... 39

VII. RESULTS OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................. 42Introduction ....................................................... ..... 42Pedestrian Reconnaissance ................................................. 42Auger Testing Results ................ .................................... 43Location 1 .. .. .. . .. .. ..... .. .. .... .... .... ... ..... .. ... .... . ... ... ... .. 5 1

VIII. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 56

REFERENCES CITED ..................................................... 57

AUGER TESTS .................................................... Appendix I

SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................. Appendix II

Accesston For

Qlt'ryMMCT 4 DTIC TAli 53Uu I Ia a, c-• 4 d 0]

v Digisty,:b.- ' , ,

,A'ic:l ' 1 Codes_......�__A ý3 l r

UST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Excerpt from the 1965 (photorevised 1972 and 1979) USGS 7.5'series topographic quadrangle, New Orleans West, Louisiana,showing the Carrollton Bend project area ........................ ....... 2

Figure 2. Paleogeography of the Mississippi River Delta ................ ........ . . . 11

Figure 3. Comparison of the 1893 (Sheets 75 and 76) and 1921 MississippiRiver Commission charts, and the 1965 (photorevised 1972 and1979) USGS 7.5' series topographic quadrangle, New Odeans West,Louisiana ....................... ...... ................ ........... 13

Figure 4. Schematic representation of the general land tenure history forthe Carrollton Bend study reach, from concession grant to 1860(Goodwin, et al. 1983; Bezou 1973; Reeves 1980; Swanson 1975) ....... ........ 22

Figure 5. Plan of th- project area, showing landscape features and excavatedauger tests . . . ... ..... ..... ... .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .... . .. 40

Figure 6. Stratigraphic soil profile of Transect 4, Auger Test 1 ............................ 44

Figure 7. Stratigraphic soil profile of Transect 12, Auger Test 1 ................ ....... 45

Figure 8. Plan of observed brick piers and adjacent auger tests at Location 1 ............... 52

Figure 9. Stratigraphic soil profile of the east, south, and west walls of Unit 1at Locatio n 1 .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .... .. . .. .... . .. .. .... . .. .. 53

vi

UST OF TABLES

Table 1. Previously recorded archeological sites near the project area .... 38

Table 2. Inventory from cultural resource survey of Carrollton Bend Revetment,Mississippi River M-105.7 to 101 .7-L ...................... ...... 46

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals and organizations who gave their timeand effort to assist us in the research and production of this report Ms, Carroll Kleinhans. COTR, preparedthe Scope of Services, and provided valuable advice throughout the project. Mr. Howard Bush served asCOR. We also thank the staffs of the Louisiana Division of Archaeology: and, the Louisiana Collection,Howard-Titon Memorial Ubrary, Tulane University, for their assistance.

At R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., William P. Athens served as Project ManagerStephen Hinks directed field Investigations, while archeological assistants included Charlotte Donald, JamesA. Green, Ann Ballard, Ann Fleetwood, Christine Herman, Jeremy Horowitz, John Brothers. Il1, David Lynes,and Christopher Parker. Paul Heinrich conducted the geomorphological research. Ralph Draughon, Jr.,with the assistance of Susan Barrett Smith, and Danton Kostandarithes, explored the historical developmentof the project area. David Courington and Shirley Rambeau prepared the graphic materials included in thisreport. The report was produced by Christine Herman.

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a Phase 1/11 cultural resources Investigation of the Carrollton BendRevetment, Mississippi River M-105.7 to 101.7-L Jefferson and Orleans parishes, Louisiana. The project areaIs situated on the batture, extending from Jefferson Heights, m Jefferson Parish, downriver through Carrolltonto the Audubon Zoological Park, in Orleans Parish (Figure 1). Archeological survey was conducted in June1992 by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New OrleansDistrict, pursuant to Delivery Order 11, Contract DACW29-90-D-O0018. This project was undertaken incompliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

The project reach encompasses three adjacent segments (Figure 1). The downriver segment liesbetween River Miles 104.7 and 101.7-L; it contains the previously constructed Carrollton Bend Revetment,Only archival research was undertaken to assess the potential for encountering significant cultural resourcesIn that area; no archeological testing was conducted within this segment. The central segment lies betweenRiver Miles 105.2 and 104.7-L; it corresponds to the 1992 extension of the Carrollton Bend Revetment. Thiscentral segment was examined for cultural resources through pedestrian survey and systematic augertesting. The upriver segment is located between River Miles 105.7 and 105.2-L; it encompasses a plannedCarrollton Bend Revetment construction easement. That area, which exhibits considerable modemdisturbance, was examined through pedestrian survey and tne excavation of numerous judgmentally placedauger tests.

Field investigations were designed to identify and evaluate all archeological sites and pre-1945historic standing structures In the project area. Archival research focused on reconstructing the historicdevelopment of the waterfront, identifying potential archeological resources within the area. and making apreliminary evaluation of the impact of natural and cultural processes on the project reach.

Fieldwork consisted of intensive pedestrian survey, augmented by systematic and judgmental augertesting within selected portions of the project reach (Figure 1). Additional testing, including the excavationof a single 1 x 2 m unit, was performed at one identified cultural resources location. This testingdemonstrated that the cultural resources location was comprised solely of modem bankline protectiondebris, and that the locus did not constitute an archeological resource. During survey, approximately 70ac were examined; no significant archeological deposits were identified.

Organization of the Report

The natural setting of the project area Is described in Chapter II. This discussion incorporates datacollected during the field investigations to interpret the impact of natural and cultural processes on theproject area. A prehistoric overview of the region is presented in Chapter i11. The historic development ofthe project reach Is incorporated into Chapter IV; it emphasizes the development of the waterfront, andIdentifies potential historic archeological sites within the current project area. A review of the previousarcheological investigations conducted in the vicinity of the project area is contained in Chapter V. Methodsutilized during survey and in conducting the laboratory analyses of recovered materials are described inChapter VI. The results of the field and laboratory investigations are presented in Chapter VII. Finally, asummary and management recommendations are presented in Chapter VIII.

1

45\\ 41r A 105

Radio TOWVW.

Usht~

4,. u~ao~.

9/! *1~-O1/W

/~~ 41 ~ '.*. .~. I

Susato .M'.

/~:t: ' */. G'n Eievatol" -G** ' /l e 0 1 " - ' 0

Z-1i~ :F ;/ To

It. 7

/r

ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEYAD ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

ARCHIVAL REERC NLY

)LOVIfSIANA ESAC

I~o 00 C oo Mc~ 300c 4XC 5000 600 700C fEr,

*5 0

Figure 1. Excerpt from the 1965 (photorevised 1972 and 1979) USGS 7.5' series topographic quadrangle,New Orleans West, Louisiana. showing the Carrollton Bend project area-

2

CHAPTER II

NATURAL SETTING

Introduction

This chapter portrays the natural setting of the Carrollton Send Revetment project area It includesa description of the natural setting, an examination of the natural and anthropomorphic processes thatshaped the Carrollton Bend Revetment area, and an assessment of how such processes influence theoccurrence and preservation of archeological deposits within the project reach.

Physiography

The project area lies within the Mississippi Delta Plain of the Holocene deltaic plain physiographicregion (Hunt 1974). The episodic progradation of delta complexes associated with the Mississippi and Redrivers over the past 9,000 years createa the complex geomorphic surface that forms the Mississippi DeltaPlain (Frazier 1967; Penland et al. 1987). This geomorphic surface consists of numerous coalesced orpartially buried delta plains that represent the surfaces of individual delta complexes. A typical delta plainexhibits a classic radiating pattern of relict deltaic distributaries extending from a central trunk channel asdescribed by Kolb and Van Lopik (1966) and Illustrated by Saucier and Snead (1989) and Snead andMcCulloh (1984).

The Carrollton Bend project area lies within the St. Bernard Coastal Region as defined by Goodwinet al. (1991 :Figure 1). This region consists of the partially submerged and slowly subsiding delta plains ofthe St. Bernard (Metairie-La Loutre) delta complex. These delta plains consist of eastwardly radiating bayousand natural levee ridges which represent the abandoned distributary systems of the inactive delta complex(Treadwell 1955:Figures I and 2). The portions of the deltaic plain situated adjacent to the Mississippi Riverhave been modified by the lateral migration of the river channel and by the formation of the natural levees(Kolb and Saucier 1982:80; Kolb and Van Lopik 1966:27-33).

The Carrollton Bend project area lies entirely along the left descending bank and on the MississippiRiver batture. Prior to levee construction and the historic development cf the project area, the arearepresented the Inner edge of the active Mississippi River natural levee. This natural levee can be associatedwith Meander Belt No. 1, which forms a narrow strip of the modern delta plain of the Mississippi River Deltawithin the St. Bernard Coastal Region. Because the project area lies on a cutbank of the Mississippi River,these natural levee sediments directly overlie deltaic sediments of the St. Bernard Delta Complex (Kolb 1962,Kolb et al. 1975).

Geomorphology

The delta plains which constitute the St. Bernard Coastal Region are geomorphic surfacesconstructed by the aggradation of deltaic sediments. These geomorphic surfaces can be either subaerialor buried and represent either active or abandoned part" of a deltaic system. The feature formed by theconstructional surfaces of delta lobes fed from a common trunk channel is called a "delta plain". Thesubsurface deltaic sediments and the delta plain constitute a single delta complex. An individual delta lobeconsists of subdettas and minor distributaries fed from a single, major distributary (Coleman and Gagliano1964; Frazier 1967).

3

The term *delta plain* is reserved solely for the subaenialt cornucIKonal surface of a delta complexSome recent studies, e.g. Penland et al (1987), confused geomorphic surfaces and subsurface sedimentsby incorrectly extending the definition of a *delta plain* to include both the surface of the delta and thesediments that form this surface, This definition is incorrect, because a plain of any type is strictly ageomorphic surface consisting of level or nearly level land that lacks any reference to the deposits that formit (Goodwin et al. 1991:21-22).

Delta Con-gexes

A delta plain is the upper surface and bounding discontinuity of a depositional sequence of deltasediments that lies between upper and lower bounding discontinuities The lower bounding discontinuityof these sedimentary sequences Is defined by an erosional unconformitt formed either by fluvial or marineprocesses. Because these sedimentary sequences can be defined and mapped by bounding discontmnuities.they are, according to the formal stratigraphic nomenclature, alloformatlions (North American Commissionon Stratigraphic Nomenclature 1963:865-867). Since these allotormations have not yet been fornmally namedor defined, an informal allostratigraphic unit, the *complex,* is used A complex is defined as a single ortemporally related set of surfaces and the associated sedimentary sequence or sequences (Autin et aW1990:20, 1991:556).

As used by Frazier (1967). a *delta complex* is an allostratigraphic unit consisting of a lowerbounding discontinuity, a regular sequence of deltaic facies, and an upper bounding sequence The lowerbounding discontinuity is either an erosion surface or an older constructional geomorphic surface Typically.the deltaic sequence consists of a basal layer of transgressive sediments, a middle unit of fine-grainedprogradational sediments, and an upper unit of aggradational natural levee and marsh sediments- The uppersurface of a delta c(mplex, the delta plain, is formed by aggradation sediments

The lower boutding discontinuity is formed by the lanrward movement of the shoreline, I e., a"transgression,* over a previously subaerial delta or coastal plain, As the shoreline migrates landward, thebeach shoreface typically cuts deeply into the underlying Pleistocene or Holocene sediments. As a result.coastal processes erode up to several meters of the former delta or coastal plain and commonly reduce thesediments to a transgressive sand lag- The erosion and winnowing of these sediments during thesubmergence of these plains also destroyed the archeological deposits associated with them (Penland etal. 1985).

As a delta complex progrades into the gulf. a thick sequence of progradational depositsaccumulates. Initially, day Is deposited from suspension to form a thick blanket of unfossitferous,parallel-laminated, and fine-grained sediments called "prodelta facies." As the delta moves seaward, theprodelta facies become sillier and parallel and lenticular taminea of silt appear and increase In abundance.With continued progradation. the accumulating deposits consist of laminated silts and clays with thin sandlayers called "delta front facles." Studies by Kolb (1962:41-44) and Britsch and Dunbar (1990-22-23),consider the delta front facies to be part of the interdistributary facies." Locally, the uppermost portion ofthese sediments forms as a bar at the mouth of the distributary. They consist of interbedded silts and siltysands which display a wide variety of sedimentary structures associated with currents and waves, Thesesediments have been called the "intradelta fa'ýies' by Kolb (1962:41-44) and Britsch and Dunbar (1990:23)and designated as "distributary mouth bar facies" by Coleman (1982:34-39) and Ather sedimentoiogists,

The accumulation of natural levee and marsh sediments on the subaqueous progradatlonal depositscontributes to the formation of a subaerial delta plain. The deposition of sediment by floodwaters forms lowridges bordering the distributary channel. Through breaks in the natural levees, floodwaters form crevassesplays that extend onto the adjacent delta plain and subdeltas that extend into and f1 the adjacentinterdistributary bays. These sediments also are included within the Interdistrtbutary facies of Kolb

4

(1962:41-44) and Brftsch and Dunbar (1990 22-23) The natural levee and crevasse splay deposits consistof silts, sandy silts, silty sands, and very fine sands that are characteristically small-scale. cross Laminatedand rippled with intensively bioturbated zones These sediments are commrTonly oxidized and containabundant digenetic materials such as iron sesquoxide and carbonate noxdules and cements Wihin theperiodically-flooded land situated away from the main distributarles. organic marsh deposits accumulate(Coleman 1982:52).

Eventually, long-term delta lobe progradatlon leads to an overextension of the distrtbuxary nerwor.and to a decrease In hydraulic efficiency. With time, this decrease in hydraulic efficiency can cause anupstream diversion of the trunk channel. When the channel switches to a shorter, more efficient course witha steeper gradient, a new delta complex at the end of the new river channel typically is formed (Fisk 1960)

With the sediment needed to maintain the abandoned delta complex diverted to building a newdelta, tectonic and compactional subsidence and eustatic sea level rise will cause the old delta plain to sinkbeneath the Gulf of Mexico. As the delta sinks. marine processes will rework the surface of the deltacomplex forming an erosion surface and transgressive sands that form the basal disconformfty and basaldeposits of a new depositional sequence. When a delta lobe progrades over this area, these deposits willbecome part of a new delta complex (Peniand et a], 1987),

The meander belt of the Mississippi River within the Mississippi Delta Plain is fairly narrow. Thismeander belt forms the surface of a basic allostratigraphic unit, informally called a 'fluvial complex.* A flrvialcomplex consists of a sequence of fluvial deposits bounded by a basal erosional surface and the upperconstructional geomorphic surface of the meander belt. Typically, the basal bounding discontinuity is anerosional unconformity formed by scour along the channel bottom and, by the collapse of a cutbank alongthe channel (Autin 1989). Fluvial sediments deposited by this channel overlie the basal unconformity.Generally, but not always, these sediments consist of a lower part composed of point bar sands and gravels.overlain by finer-grained and vertically accreted natural levee and overbank sediments (Walker 1984). Theupper bounding discontinuity is formed by the meander belt. If later fluvial erosion truncates and buries theupper portion of a fluvial complex, then the upper bounding discontinuity will consist of an erosional surface(Goodwin et al. 1991:22-24).

Within the New Orleans area, the lateral migration of the Mississippi River has created a meanderbelt 1.0 to 1.8 km wide. As the channel migrated laterally, its cutbank eroded the Holocene deltaic depositsand underlying Pleistocene sediments to depths of 35 to 40 m (115 to 131 ft) below seal level. This laterallymigrating channel simuitaneously backfilled the opposite bank with coarse-grained point bar sediments.Natural levee deposits from the Mississippi River have buried the deltaic plain adjacent to the meander beltand the point bar deposits within it. The ages, origin, and stratigraphy of the sediments found within themeander belt contrast sharply with the sediments forming the adjacent delta plain. Because of the restrictedmeandering of the channel, the meander belt within the New Orleans area lacks abandoned meander loopsand oxbow lakes, features normally associated with such a process (Kolb 1962:Plate 5 and 6, Kolb andSaucier 1982:80). In part, the narrow meander belt reflects the geologically short length of time that thissegment of the Mississippi River has had to develop when compared to other reaches to the north. Also,within the stretch of the Mississippi River from near College Point, River Mile 160, to River Mile 80. themeander belt of the Mississippi River has carved into overconsolidated, durable, clayey Pleistocenesediments. These sediments form a natural revetment that limits the rates at which channel migration canoccur. South of River Mile 80, channel migration is limited by the cohesive prodelta and delta front claysthat form the banks of the river (Kolb 1962:50-51, 1963:231-232).

5

Geology

New Orleans, as well as the remainder of southern Louisiana, lies directly upon the surface of a verythick wedge of sand, silt, and clay formed by sediment transported by the Misssippl Rrver This wedgeconsists of approximately 12,000 m (7 ml) of alternating Neogene fluvial, deltaic, and rninne depositsThese sediments represent the accumulation of hundreds of transgressjve.regresszve deposiienal sequencesof which the St. Bernard Delta Complex represents one of the latest, The uppermost 640 m (2+100 ft) of thisclastic wedge consists of sediments that accumulated during the Pleistocene Epoch Only the upper 10 to30 m (33 to 100 ft) represent sediments that accumulated within the last 10,000 years (Kolb and Saucier1982: T-80).

Three well-defined complexes can be recognized within the project area The youngest of theseallostratigraphic units is the fluvial complex associated with the modern meander belt, I-e-, Meander Belt No1 of the Mississippi River. The formation of Meander Belt No. I has partialfy buned or removed by rosionthe Holocene deltaic sediments of the next older deposiional complex, the St, Bernard Delta Complex Thesediments of the St. Bernard Delta Complex completely buried the third alostratigraph;c unit, the PrairieComplex as defined by Autin of al. (1991:55&559)

Two, and possibly three, depositional sequences and unnamed alloformations belonging to thePrairie Complex directly underlie the St, Bernard Delta Complex, Within the New Orleans area, thesedepositional sequences and ailostratigraphic units consist of Indistinguishable and heerogeneousassemblages of deltaic, shallow marine, and strandline deposits. These depositioral sequences are definedby the occurrence of well-defined, often erosionally truncated, weathering horizons

Within the project area, the top of the Prairie Complex is marked by a well developed, truncatedweathering horizon that occurs at an approximate depth of 21 to 25 m (69 to 82 It) below sea level. Thisweathering horizon, called the *First Pleistocene Horizon* by Kolb et al. (1975:4), is distinguished from theoverlying Holocene material by a mottled orange, tan, or greenish gray color, an abrupt decrease In watercontent, an increase in stiffness and shear strength, and the presence of calcareous nodules (Kolb et al.1975; Saucier 1977:10-13).

Beneath the project area, the sediments of the St. Bernard Delta Complex measure approximately20 to 24 m (66 to 79 ft) in thickness. This depositional sequence consists primarily of 6 to 10 m (20 to 33It) of basal transgressive and prodelta deposits overlain by 11 m (36 ft) of Intradelta sediments. About 3 m(10 ft) of clayey aggradational swamp and marsh deposits cap the progradatlonal deposits and form theburied surface of the St. Bernard Delta Complex (Kolb 1962; Koib et al. 1975).

Meander Belt No. 1 represents the surface of an unnamed fluvial complex consisting of the pointbar and natural levee deposits of the Mississippi River. Under Nine Mile Point, the sediments associatedwith Meander Belt No. I consist entirely of point bar deposits that measure over 41 m (134 ft) thick. Thepoint bar deposits consist primarily of fine sand and silty sand interspersed with thin Interbeds of clay. Over5 to 6 m (16 to 20 ft) of natural levee deposits bury the underlying point bar deposits to form the surfaceof Meander Belt No. 1 (Kolb et al. 1962; Kolb and Saucier 1982).

Bordering the meander belt, the wedge-shaped body of natural levee deposits extendsapproximately I to 2 km (.62 to 1.2 ml) away from the cutbanks of the Mississippi River and across theadjacent delta plain. Within the project area, about 6 m (20 ft) of natural levee sediments cover the surfaceof the St. Bernard delta plain, which consists of clayey Inland swamp deposits. To the north the naturallevee sediments rapidly thin to a thickness of about 3 m (10 ft) and completely pinch out further to the north.Radiocarbon dating material from peats and wood recovered from the natural levees demonstrate that thesedeposits are less than 1,200 years old (Kolb 1962; Kolb et al. 1975; Kolb and Saucier 1982; Saucier 1963).

6

Auger testing within the Carrollton Bend Revetment project area indicates that a significant amountof modem overbank sediments underlie the batture surface. A series of 2 m deep auger tests excavatedwithin the project area encountered only poorly consolidated, even semifluid, sediments that have beenunaltered significantly by pedogenesis. The typical lack of consolidation and pedogenic alteration indicatessediments of recent origin. The modem nature of these deposits is Ilustrated by the recovery of a pieceof monoilament netting from one auger test situated at the western end of the project area 120 cm (47 in)and a piece of asphalt shingle recovered from 150 cm (59 in) at the eastern end of the project area,

The data from the auger tests also Indicates that these deposits consisted of a heterogeneousassemblage of overbank sands, sifts, and clays that lack discernable depositional patterns (Appendix I). Forexample, the auger tests within Transects 16 and 18. penetrated sediments consisting primarily ofInterbedded silt loam, sandy loam, and loamy sand with minor amounts of silty clay and clayey silt. Someof the beds are dearly laminated. On the other hand, auger tests within Transect 17 produced mostlyinterbedded and occasionally laminated clayey silts and silty clays. Similarly, the line of auger tests alongthe baseline penetrated randomly Interbedded beds of silty clay, clayey silt, silty clay loam, silt loam, silt,sandy loam, and sand of which some were laminated. The clayey beds often contained fragments of woodand other organic matter. These sediments generally varied in color from very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) to darkbrown (lOYR 3/3), to dark gray (IOYR 4/1), or dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4). Some of the auger testspenetrated sediments with gleyed colors, e.g., gray (5Y 5/1), and olive gray (5Y 4/2) at 1.5 m (5 It) in depth.However, these colors represent permanently water-saturated sediments, not identifiable stratigraphic layers.From the available data, laterally persistent stratigraphic units could not be defined on the basis of lithology,unconformities, or by the presence of buried soils.

Geomorphic Terranes

Numerous sedimentological and geomorphological studies of the Mississippi River Delta documentthe direct association between constructional landforms and the sedimentary facies that form them. Thesestudies demonstrate that the distribution of deltaic landforms within a delta plain are directly related to thesubsurface distribution of specific depositional facdes within the shallow subsurface (Fisk 1960; Kolb and VanLopik 1966; Coleman 1982). Since a restricted range of sediment types characterizes each depositionalfacies, the three-dimensional distribution of different deltaic sediments within the near subsurface can bemapped by analyzing the corresponding distribution of landforms and soils. In addition, becausedepositional facdes can be correlated directly with specific depositional environments, the archeologicalpotential of these deposits can be determined from terrane mapping.

The terrane is the basic unit for mapping the subsurface distribution of geologic materials on thebasis of associated landforms (Berg et al. 1984). By definition, a terrane is a mappable portion of thesurface that exhibits a distinctive assemblage of landforms which are underlain by a specific sedimentaryfacies. The Carrollton Bend Revetment project area consists entirely of natural levee terrane. Point bar,natural levee, abandoned distributary, and Inland swamp terranes occur adjacent to the project area.Because they lie outside of the project area, the inland swamo, point bar, and abandoned distributaryterranes are not discussed here. However, Britsch and Dunbar (1990), Coleman (1982), Kolb (1962), andKolb and Van Lopik (1966) discuss the characteristics of such terranes.

The Carrollton Bend Revetment lies within natural levee deposits formed by the Mississippi River.As previously noted, the natural levee Is a wedge-shaped body of sediments associated with the adjacentfluvial complex resting upon the delta plain and sediments of the St. Bernard Delta Complex within theproject area. The deposition of sediments by seasonal flooding resulted in the formation of the naturallevees along this stretch of the Mississippi River. The details concerning the fluvial processes that formnatural levees are documented and discussed by Farrell (1987) and Fisk (1947) and, thus, will not be

7

repeated here. Because the project area lies within the modem batture of the Mississippi River, It is stillsubject to frequent flooding and active sedimentation.

Detailed data concerning the lithology of the sediments forming the natural levee within the NewOrleans area have not been published. Typically, such natural levees consist predominantly of interbeddedsits, clayey silts, and clays with minor amounts of silty sand. The proportion of clay within the natural leveedeposits Increases with distance from the associated bank of the Mississippi River. Generally, thesesediments have been intensively altered by bioturbation and pedogenesis. Thus, the upper portions of thesedeposits are generally massive, have a reddish brown to brown color, contain Iron sesquoxide andcarbonate nodules, have low water contents, and are stiff to very stiff in consistency. The older natural leveedeposits, which have been effected less by pedogenesis, have grayish colors and have layers which retaintheir original sedimentary structures. When preserved, these structures Include a variety of climbing ripplesand small scale cross laminations (Coleman 1982; Kolb 1962:27-40; Kolb and Van Lopik 1966:27-29).

As determined by auger testing conducted during this project, the modem overbank sedimentsunderlying the Carrollton Bend Revetment project area consist of a heterogeneous assemblage ofInterbedded sandy, silty, and clayey sediments. Although the use of a hand auger to collect samples verylikely obscured primary sedimentary structures, many of the beds of slit loam are clearly laminated and,often, interlaminated with silty clay, silt, and sand. The clayey beds frequently contain fragments of woodand other organic materials. In general, these sediments are considerably less weathered, less consolidated,and less effected by pedogenesis than typical natural levee deposits suggesting an accumulation of relativelyrecent deposits.

The soils developed within the alluvial deposits of the batture consist of frequently floodedCommerce and Sharkey soils. Both soils have developed within poorly drained to very poorly drained,recently-deposited alluvium that is subject to deep and seasonal flooding from the Mississippi River.Overflow from the Mississippi River floods these soils, mostly in spring, to depths of 0.6 to 3 m (2 to 10 ft).The Commerce soils are somewhat poorly drained, neutral to mildly alkaline entisols developed within therecently deposited silt boams and silty clay boams within the batture. Typically, its sola consist of a 50 to 100cm thick, A-B horizon sequence with silt loam A horizon and silty clay loam B horizon. Sharkey soils arepoorly drained, neutral to moderately alkaline Inceptisols developed within the recently deposited clayeyalluvium found within the batture. Typically, its sola consist of a 91 to 152 cm thick, A-B-Cg horizonsequence with a clay A horizon and either silt loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, clay B and Cg horizons. TheSharkey Soil has a high shrink-swell potential. When dry, it can develop cracks that are 4 cm or more wideand as deep as 50 cm (Matthews 1983).

Paleogeography

During the Late Pleistocene Stage, from 132,000 to 10,000 years Before Present (B.P.), theaccumulation and dissolution of continental Ice sheets caused eustatic sea level to fluctuate generally 20to 70 m (66 to 230 ft) below present sea level. Maximum high stands occurred at approximately 120,000year Intervals during interglacial periods such as the Holocene Epoch and early Sangamonlan Stage. Asa result, the paleogeography of southeastern Louisiana changed as the shoreline migrated north and southacross the southeast Louisiana continental shelf and coastal plain. During Oxygen Isotope Stage SE, theSangamonian high stand (120,000 years B.P.) sea level reached an elevation of 6 to 7 m (20 to 23 If) abovepresent levels. At this time, the northern portion of the coast-parallel Prairie Terrace consisted of an activeseries of coalesced alluvial plains (Autin et al. 1991:556-558; Moore 1982; Suter et al. 1987).

8

Wisconsinan Staae

During the Late Wisconsinan Stage, the 20,000 year cycle of eustatic sea level fluctuation createda series of depositional sequences. The fall in sea level resulted in the expansion of the coastal plain ontothe modem continental shelf, and the accumulation of thin, laterally extensive deposits of shelf-phase deltasand, eventually, the accumulation of thick fluvial deposits on the continental shelf. At maximum low stand,the dropping sea level caused an entrenchment of the shelf by fluvial systems; subaerial exposure of theshelf; and the deposition of thick shelf-margin deltas at the shelf edge. When sea level rose, the ensuingtransgression submerged, eroded, reworked, and redistributed fluvial and deltaic deposits as broad sandsheets and shoals. As the rise in sea level ceased or slowed to a low rate, fluvial systems, delivering anabundant supply of sediment to the coast, then built deltaic complexes that prograded seaward and ontothe shelf (Coleman and Roberts 1988; Suter et al. 1987).

Each cycle of eustatic sea level fluctuation created a depositional sequence of fluvial, deltaic,estuarine, and marine sediments separated either by exposure surfaces or erosional unconformities. As aresult, the repeated fluctuations in sea level left an accumulation of sediments that formed the modemcontinental shelf and coastal plain of Louisiana (Coleman and Roberts 1988; Suter et al. 1987). The uppertwo depositional sequences of the Pleistocene sediments which underlie the New Orleans area appear torepresent materials deposited between 21,000 to 120,000 years B.P. (Autin et al. 1991:558; Saucier1977:10-13).

Around 21,000 years B.P., at the start of the Late Wisconsinan Substage, relative sea level droppedfrom the highest Middle Wisconsinan high stand of 20 m (66 ft) below present sea level to its maximum LatePleistocene low stand at about 120 m (394 ft) below present sea level. In response, the shoreline shiftedto the modem shelf edge, subaerially exposing large areas of the continental shelf. Surficial weatheringformed a truncated weathering horizon, i.e., the "First Pleistocene Horizon" as described by Kolb et al.(1975:4). The Mississippi River and its tributaries responded by partially reintrenching the Mississippi Valleyby 25 to 30 m (82 to 100 ft). Similarly, the major streams within the New Orleans area entrenched theirvalleys by 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft) (Kolb et al. 1975:Plate 2; Saucier 1963:Figure 14, 1977:10-13; Suter et al.1987).

By 10,000 years B.P., relative sea level rose episodically from approximately 120 m (394 ft) belowsea level to 30 m (100 ft) below sea level. A wide, deeply cut, erosional terrace along the edge of the outercontinental shelf records a still stand about 80 to 90 m (262 to 295 ft) below modem sea level. In addition,during a stillstand between 9200 and 8200 years B.P., the "Outer Shoal Delta Complex, whose delta plainlies at depths of 15 to 25 m (49 to 82 ft), apparently formed (Frazier 1974; Goodwin et al. 1991:36).

Holocene Epoch

As the Late Wisconsinan-Holocene sea level rise submerged the modern Louisiana Continental Shelf,the transgressing shoreline substantially modified its surface. The degree of transgressive erosion variedfrom the minor rbmoval of overbank deposits from existing natural levees to the complete erosion of thealluvial plains within coast-parallel terraces During still stands, local accumulations of lagoonal, chenier, orother aggradational coastal plain deposits may have buried the coastal plain deep enough to have protectedit from this transgressive erosion (Pearson et al. 1986:224-245; Suter et al. 1987).

In addition, shelf and transgressive shoreface processes substantially modified both strandlines anddeltas. Shoreface erosion deeply eroded the surfaces of the Late Wisconsinan and Early to Middle Holocenedeltas and formed extensive ravinement surfaces. Shelf and sound processes eroded and redistributed theupper parts of many barrier islands, cheniers, and deltas into marine sheet sands and east-west orientedsand shoals. Even though three or four of these offshore sand ridge trends represent the remains of

9

drowned strandlines, the original barrier islands and beach deposits have been almost totally reworked intomarine sand shoals. During this epoch, the entrenched valleys of the Mississippi River and local streamswere filled with fluvial, estuarine, and sometimes lagoonal sediments (Frazier 1974:19-24; Penland et al. 1985;Penland et al. 1987; Suter et al. 1987:210-214).

From about 7500 to 5500 years B.P., a stillstand occurred during an otherwise rapid rise in sea level,at a depth 5 to 6 m (16 to 20 ft) below present levels. During this stillstand, the Maringouln Delta Complexdeveloped (Frazier 1967, 1974). Frazier (1967:269) noted the presence of two stacked, depositionalsequences within this complex.

As sea level rose, the Gulf of Mexico flooded the Late Wisconsinan eastern Louisiana coastal plain.By 5000 years B.P., the shoreline had reached the edge of the modem Prairie Terraces forming thePontchartrain Embayment. Between 5100 and 4000 years B.P., longshore currents created and maintaineda chain of barrier islands and shoals which extended southwest across the embayment from the mouth ofthe Pearl River. This chain of shoal and scattered islands, called the "New Orleans Trend," created thegulfward boundary of an ancient Pontchartrain Bay (Figure 2). By about 5000 years B.P., rising sea levelalso flooded the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and created a brackish water embayment that extended up nearBaton Rouge (Otvos 1978; Saucier 1963:44-46).

To the west, the renewed rise in sea level submerged most of the surface of the Maringouin DeltaComplex. The Teche Delta Complex began to develop around 5,800 years ago. Between 5800 and 3900years B.P., the Mississippi River built the Teche Delta Complex; this covered the existing Maringouin DeltaComplex (Figure 2) (Frazier 1967; Weinstein and Gagliano 1985:120-123).

About 4800 years B.P., the Mississippi River began to shift its course from Meander Belt No. 3 toMeander Belt No. 2 at Marksville, Louisiana; this diverted much of the flow down the eastern and central partof the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Autin et al. 1991). As a result, a new delta complex, called the "early St.Bernard Delta Complex" by Frazier (1967) and the "Metairie Delta Complex" by Weinstein and Gagliano(1985:122-123) prograded into and through the New Orleans area (Figure 2). The main delta of this complexprograded about 70 km (44 mi) southeast of New Orleans and into the Gulf of Mexico. By 4000 years B.P.,another small delta of this complex had prograded northeast and buried a chain of southwest trendingbarrier islands, the New Orleans Barrier Island Trend. The New Orleans Trend shifted slightly eastward toform the Bayou Sauvage Trend of shoals and barrier islands. The burial of the New Orleans Trend by deltaicdeposits remade Pontchartrain Bay into a brackish water bay ancestral to Lake Pontchartrain (Otvos1973:31-33; 1978:Figure 16; Saucier 1963:56-59).

From about 3400 to 1600 years B.P., the Metairie Delta Complex developed into the La Loutre DeltaComplex as defined Weinstein and Gagliano (1985:123) or the St. Bernard Delta Complex of Frazier (1967).This delta complex formed two major delta lobes that prograded from the New Orleans area (Figure 2). Thelarger delta, La Loutre Delta, prograded eastward to form most of St. Bernard Parish. By 3000 years B.P.,this delta lobe had buried the New Orleans Trend and created Lake Pontchartrain. A smaller delta, the DesFamilies Delta, prograded southward from the New Orleans region. From 1800 to 600 years B.P., only theBayou Sauvage delta of the St. Bernard Delta Complex remained active.

Between 4800 and 2000 years B.P., Bayou Lafourche slowly prograded southward from the NewOrleans region (Figure 2). Between 4800 and 3500 years ago, Bayou Lafourche apparently formed andbegan to slowly prograde southward. It reached Thibodaux by the end of this period. Between 3500 and2000 years B.P., some flow continued to be diverted down Bayou Lafourche extending it slowly southward,building the Terrebonne and Lafourche delta lobes (Weinstein and Gagliano 1985:123). The distributariesof the Terrebonne Delta Complex probably reoccupied relict distributaries of the former Teche DeltaComplex. By 2000 years B.P., the Lafourche Delta Complex reached its peak discharge.

10

4000 YEARS AGO 1200 YEARS AGO

3000 YEARS AGO 800 YEARS AGO

2000 YEARS AGO 400 YEARS AGO

AP ALLUVIAL PLAINBA = BALIZE DELTA COMPLEXLA = LAFOURCHE DELTA COMPLEX Prairie SaltMA = MARINGOUIN DELTA COMPLEX Terrace MarshME METAIRIE DELTA COMPLEXPL = PLAQUEMINES DELTA COMPLEXTE = TECHE DELTA COMPLEXSB = ST. BERNARD DELTA COMPLEX Active BarrierDeltas

Islands

Subsiding ChFenierDeltas Plain

FreshwaterSwamp

PALEOGEOGRAPHY LOCATION

Figure 2. paleogegraphy of the sssippi RIer Defta.

By about 1000 years B.P., the discharge through the Lafourche Delta Complex began to wane asthe discharge of the Mississippi River reoccupied the St. Bernard/La Loutre Delta Complex. Flow throughthe Terrebonne Delta stopped and active progradatlon of that delta ceased. Since then. the TerrebonneParish region has been subsiding slowly. Bayou Lafourche remained an active distributary of the MississippiRiver until artificially closed in 1904 (Weinstein and Gagliano 1985:144).

About 1000 years B.P., the relict feeder channel of the St. Bernard (La Loutre) Delta complex wasreoccupied partially and a delta of the Plaquemines Delta Complex prograded through the interlobe basinbetween the Des Families and La Loutre deltas of the St. Bernard Delta Complex. Initially, the dischargeflowed through a series of channels in this basin, such as the River aux Chenes, Belair, and Bayou GrandeCheniere. By approximately 600 years B.P., the Bayou Grande Cheniere became the modem course of theLower Mississippi River. As the shoal-water Plaquemines Delta Complex prograded off the shelf edge, theshelf-margin Balize Delta formed (Weinstein and Gagliano 1985:125, 143).

Geoarcheology

The geomorphic setting and the associated sedimentology greatly restricts the potential forencountering archeological deposits within the project area. During the prehistoric and early historicperiods, the project area lay on an actively aggrading natural levee of the Mississippi River. Constructionof thp artificial levee system confined riverine processes to the batture; this area remains subject tooccasional periods of rapid sedimentation. As a result, it is highly unlikely that any prehistoric and/or mosthistoric deposits within the project area will manifest themselves as surface sites. Because of the relativelyhigh rates of sedimentation that characterize the natura! 3vees within this young and evolving segment ofthe Mississippi River, it is very likely that all prehistoric a, ;heological deposits within the area will be deeplyburied within the natural levee sediments that form the project area (Farrell 1987; Heinrich 1991). Similarly,the continued episodic periods of deposition indicate that even historic archeological deposits might bedeeply buried within the batture.

The geomorphic setting of the project area severely restricts the potential for encountering buriedarcheological deposits. Buried archeological deposits will be associated with the delta plain of the St.Bernard Delta Complex and the Prairie Terraces of the Prairie Complex. In addition, significant archeologicaldeposits probably are absent from the progradational deltaic deposits that underlie the project area becauseof their subaqueous environment of deposition. However, the natural levee sediments overlying the pointbar sediments within the project area have some potential for containing deeply buried prehistoricarcheological deposits.

The age of the deposits are restricted severely by the age of the natural levee sediments. Withinthe project area, the deltaic deposits of the Plaquemine Delta Complex probably started to accumulateduring the initial phase of its construction, I.e., about 1000 radiocarbon years B.P. Sometime after that, theaccumulation of natural levee deposits along the Mississippi River began. Only after the natural leveesediments started to accumulated could archeological deposits be preserved within the project area. Asa result, any prehistoric archeological deposits within the project area would be less than a 1,000 years old.

Historic Bankline Changes In the Project Area Vicinity

A comparison of the 1893 and 1921 Mississippi River Commission Charts 75 and 76 with the 1965(photorevised 1972 and 1979) USGS 7.5' series topographic quadrangle, New Orleans West, Louisiana,documents historic bankline change within the project area vicinity (Figure 3). In 1893, the Mississippi Riverflowed within 50 to 100 m (164 to 328 ft) of the modern artificial levee along most of the archeological surveyportion of the project area. Near the downriver end of the archeological survey area, the 1893 bankline

12

LAJ 0

H>ID-V)0

ujUA

cnm

II 0

iiccU.

13r

extended into the modern river. Throughout the remainder of the project area, to the vicinity of the AudubonZoological Park, and corresponding with the existing Carroilton Bend Revetment, the modern alignment ofthe river cuts up to 50 m (164 ft) into the 1893 bankline. By 1921, portions of the project area had aggradedto a point approximately halfway between the modem artificial levee and the modern bankline. At thedownriver end of the survey area, and the upriver end of the existing Carrollton Bend Revetment, the 1921bankline is cut by the modern bankline. However, the downriver 4 km (2.5 mi) remained nearly unchangedbetween 1921 and 1979, demonstrating the stability of the Carrollton Bend Revetment system.

Fauna and Flora

Vegetation within the project area has been disturbed considerably by the construction of theadjacent artificial levee and by modern land use. Little is known about the native vegetation that existed onthe natural levees of this area prior to its occupation by European settlers. Presumably, it resembledcommunities still found along the natural levees of distributaries found elsewhere in the Mississippi DeltaPlain, If so, then these natural levees probably were covered by an oak forest assemblage. The principleoverstory would have Included water oak (Quercus nigra), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), cottonwood(Populus de/toides), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentafis), redgum, blackwillow (Salix nigra), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata), water locust (Gleditsiaaquatica), and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). The understory probably contained shrubs such asbuttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), marshelder, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and yaupon (//ex vomitoria). Vines such as trumpet creeper(Campis radicans), poison ivy (Rhus radicans) and ratten vine (Berchmis scandens) also were common.The groundcover probably consisted of various grasses (Gramineae) and sedges (Cyperaceae) (Craig etal. 1987; Penfound and Hathaway 1938).

Similarly, little is known about the fauna present within the prehistoric oak forests that occupied thenatural levees of the Mississippi River and Bayou des Families. However, these forests undoubtedlysupported a variety of mammals, birds, and reptiles. The fauna once found within the natural levee terrainprobably included large mammals such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciuruscarolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagusaquaticus), and black bear (Ursus americanus). Undoubtedly, predator mammals such as red fox (Vulpesfulva), gray fox (Urcyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata),mink (Mustela vison), and bobcat (Felis rufus) were common. These species together with raptors wereimportant in limiting the size of rabbit, mouse, squirrel, and bird populations. The mink and raccoon alsowere important as fur bearers. Birds found within these forests included the painted bunting (Passerinacirris), red-winged blackbird (Agelaiusphoenicews), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), screech owl (Otus asio), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), turkey vulture (Cathartesaura), and many others. The prehistoric oak forests were home to numerous amphibians such assalamanders, toads, tree frogs, and true frogs. Reptiles common to these forests included iguanids, skinks,lizards, snakes, pit vipers, and turtles (Lowery 1974a, 1974b; Penfound and Hathaway 1938).

Climate

The project area has a humid subtropical climate with prevailing southerly winds. The summers arehot and humid and the winters are warm. The winters are occasionally interrupted by incursions of cool airfrom the north (Trahan 1989). The average annual normal rainfall within Orleans Parish is 59 in (150 cm).The months of July, August, and September are the wettest, with a normal average precipitation that variesfrom 6.19 to 6.32 in (15.7 to 16.0 cm). October is the driest month with a normal average precipitation of2.84 in (7.21 cm). The heaviest one-day rainfall during the period of record was 9.8 in (24.9 cm); this

14

occurred in New Orleans on May 31, 1959. Rainfall and hurricane storm surge are the main causes offlooding. The rainfall associated flooding results form either near-stationary cold fronts or hurricanes. Bothcauses are capable of producing rainfall at a rate of one or more inches per hour (Trahan 1989).

Maritime tropical air masses originating in the Gulf of Mexico help keep temperatures within theproject area from varying greatly throughout the year. The average normal maximum annual temperaturefor this area is 77.40 F. During the winter, the average normal maximum annual temperature Is 540 F. Thecoldest month Is January with an average maximum temperature of 61.50 F. The average normal maximumannual temperature recorded for the summer is 900 F. The hottest month Is July with an average maximumtemperature of 90.40 F. The lowest recorded temperature, which occurred at New Orleans In February 1899is 6.80 F. The highest recorded temperature occurred on June 27, 1967; it was 980 F (Magill 1990; Trahan1989).

15

CHAPTER III

PREHISTORIC SETTING

Introduction

Louisiana's Comprehensive Archaeological Plan (Smith et al. 1983) divides the state into sixmanagement units. The project area lies on the east (left descending) bank of the Mississippi River, InJefferson and Orleans parish, within Management Unit V. Six cultural units form the prehistoric sequenceof this management unit: Poverty Point, Tchefuncte, Marksville, Troyville-Coles Creek, Plaquemine, andMississippian. However, the geomorphic development of the project area demonstrates that the prehistoricsites in the area are less than 1,000 years old. Therefore, this chapter includes only the Troyvllle throughMississippian cultural units, as well as a brief discussion of the Historic Contact period. Information aboutthe Paleo-lndian through Marksville cultural units is available elsewhere (Neuman 1984; Smith et al. 1963;Webb et al. 1971; Muller 1983; Neitzel and Perry 1978; Jenkins 1974; Walthall 1980).

Troyville-Coles Creek Culture (A.D. 400 - 1100)

Troyville culture, also called Baytown, was named after the mostly-destroyed Troyvile mound group(16CT7) near Jonesville, Louisiana. Troyville represents a transitional culture that supplanted the waningMarksville Culture around A.D. 400, and culminated in Coles Creek culture around A.D. 700. While originallyviewed as two distinct periods, the similarities and Interconnections between Troyville and Coles Creeksuggest that they generally should be studied as a single, evolving cultural unit with earlier and latermanifestations (Smith et al. 1983). Troyville marks the end of a general subsistence pattern that began InArchaic times; although various groups experienced periods of cultural efflorescence (Poverty Point,Marksville), these occurred within an essentially Archaic milieu (Gibson 1978). Two technological advancesthat date from the early part of the period and radically altered prehistoric lifeways include subsistencetogriculture, and the use of the bow and arrow. During Troyville times, maize, bean, and squash agriculturebecame widespread, leading to more complex settlement, social, and subsistence pattnms (Smith ot al.1983).

During Troyville-Coles Creek times, population increased throughout coastal Louisiana. ThisIncrease is reflected by both the tize and number of sites found throughout the area. Wetland nichesexploited by the earlier Tchefuncte culture were re-inhabited during Troyville-Coles Creek times, however,subsistence pursuits differed (Gibson 1978). Smaller mammals and larger aquatic reptiles and fish wereexploited by the later culture. Fresh, brackish, and salt water environments also were exploited. Mussels,particularly Rangia sp., supplemented horticulture and hunting pursuits. Intensive exploitation of plants, andslash-and-burn horticulture, contributed to sedentism and community autonomy (Gibson 1978). Subsistencewas varied and adaptable to different locations during this time. Settlement patterns in the coastal estuarineareas remained similar to those utilized by the preceding Late Archaic through Marksville cultures; theprimary differences were expressed in the ceramic assemblages. Coles Creek sites primarily were situatedalong stream systems where soil composition and fertility were favorable for agriculture. Natural levees,particularly those situated along old cutoffs and Inactive channels, appear to have been the most desirablelocations (Neuman 1984; Smith et al. 1983).

Coles Creek sites typically are larger, more numerous, and more complex than those of theirpredecessors. The platform and ceremonial mound construction, as well as the complex layout of someColes Creek sites imply the emergence of a chiefdom-like society and a complex social structure (Muller1963; Smith et al. 1983), A centralized authority and sizable labor force weie necessary to build, maintain,

16

and utilize these mounds. The centralized authority probably included a special religious class, while thegeneral population probably occupied the region surrounding these large, more elaborate centers (Neuman1984; Smith et al. 1983). Small Coles Creek sites consist mostly of hamlets and shell middens and normallydo not contain earthen mounds. Coles Creek shell middens commonly occur throughout the coastal regionand are located primarily on the higher portions of the natural levees (Springer 1974).

Several ceramic types utilized by the Troyville culture continued into the Coles Creek times. Forexample, Churupa Punctate and Mazique Incised are characteristic of Troyville culture, however, bothcontinued to be produced by Coles Creek and Plaquemine pottery makers (Mclntire 1958). Similarly. FrenchFork Incised, which formed the basis for many Troyville classifications, continues to appear well into theColes Creek period (Phillips 1970).

Coles Creek peoples developed a more elaborate ceramic complex that included the productionof larger vessels, as well as a wider range of decorative motifs, which usually were placed around the upperhalf of the vessel (Neuman 1984). Coles Creek pottery Is characterized by Coles Creek Incised, BeldeauIncised, Mazique Incised, and Pontchartrain Check Stamped. The distinctive Coles Creek Incised ceramictype contains a series of incised lines positioned near the rim of the vessel. These lines often areaccompanied underneath by a row of triangular impressions (Smith et al. 1983). Some ceramic motifssuggest outside cultural influences. For example, zoned rocker stamping, incised lines, and curvilinearmotifs are representative of decorative styles associated with the Florida Gulf Coast; cord marking and redfilming are traits commonly associated with cultures occupying the central Mississippi area (Smith et al.1983).

Plaquemine Culture (A.D. 1100 - 1600)

Plaquemine culture represents an indigenous development that emerged from Coles Creek aroundA.D. 1100. Plaquemine peoples continued the settlement patterns, economic organization, and religiouspractices established by the Coles Creek culture; however, agriculture, socio-political structure, and religiousceremonialism Intensified. Plaquemine sites often are characterized as ceremonial sites and contain multiplemounds situated around a central plaza. These ceremonial sites are often surrounded by dispersed villagesand hamlets (Smith et al. 1983).

Plaquemine culture first was defined at the type site, Medora (16WBR1), which is located in WestBaton Rouge Parish near the city of Plaquemine, Louisiana (Quimby 1951). This site is a large ceremonialcenter located on the Mississippi River floodplain at Manchac Point, south of Baton Rouge. Quimbyrecorded and excavated two mounds at the site. Based on his excavations, Quimby developed a trait listto characterize Plaquemine culture. Traits commonly associated with Plaquemine culture included theconstruction of truncated, pyramidal (platform) mounds in association with an adjacent plaza; mounds builtin stages; square or circular buildings (temples) associated with mounds; and, a distinctive ceramicassemblage characterized by a com',aratively high proportion of plain dishpan-shaped bowls, jars withbrushed decoration, and plates with Intedior decoration (Quimby 1951:129).

While derived from the Coles Creek tradition, Plaquemine pottery displays distinctive features thatmark the emergence of a separate culture. Even though incising and punctating of pottery continuedthrough the period, brushing emerged as the dominant decorative technique. Some vessels also wereengraved after firing (Smith et al. 1983). Plaquemine Brushed appears to have been the most widespreadceramic type. Other types include Harrison Bayou Incised, Manchac Incised, Mazlque Incised, LelandIncised, Hardy Incised, L'Eau Noire Incised, and Evansville Punctate. Decorated wares and plain wares(e.g., Anna Burnished Plain and Addis Plain) were well-made. Tempering, paste, and vessel shape aresimilar to earlier ceramic forms.

17

Mississippian Culture (A.D. 1100 - 1700)

Late during the prehistoric sequence, the Indigenous Plaquemine culture was influenced heavily byMisslssipplan culture. Mississippian Influence radiated from the middle Mississippi River Valley to southernLouisiana, Into central North Carolina, and north Into the Great Lakes region (Haag 1971). Mississippiansites In Louisiana typically are located along the extreme southeastern coast, and in an Isolated pocket inthe northeastern part of the state.

Missipplan culture exhibited a subsistence system based on the cultivation of rmize, beans,squash, and pumpkins, the collection of local plants, nuts and seeds; and, the exploitation of numerousrivenne and terrestrial species, The major Mississippian sites were located In the fertile bottomlands of thelarger river valleys; sandy and light loam soils usually composed these areas A typical Mississippiansettlement consisted of an orderly arrangement of village houses surrounding a truncated pyramidal mound.These mounds probably served as platforms for religious temples or as house platforms for the elite Ahighly organized and complex social system undoubtedly existed to sustain these intricate communities

Mississippian ceramics are characterized by shell tempering, an innovation that enabled potters tocreate larger vessels (Smith ;4t al. 1963). Ceramic vessels such as globular jars, plates, and bottles, as wellas loop- and strap-handled pots were used by Mississippian peoples. Decorative techniques Includedengraving, negative painting, and incising; modelled animal heads and anthropomorphic Images alsoadorned some ceramic vessels. Other Mississippian artifacts included chipped and ground stone tools- shellItems such as hairpins, beads, and gorgets; and mica and copper items.

Historic Contact

Lifeways of the early historic Indians remained similar to those of the Late Mississippian andPlaquemine peoples. The Indians practiced subsistence agriculture and grew maize, beans, squash, andpumpkin. Agriculture was supplemented by the gathering of wild plants; hunting and fishing also remainedImportant components of the aboriginal subsistence system.

Villages remained analogous to those observed at Plaquemine and Mississippian sites. The largervillages featured one or more truncated pyramidal mounds surmounted by houses and temples; theremaining population lived in the areas surrounding the center. Houses apparently were rectangular, withwattle and daub walls and thatched roofs (Swanton 1946).

During the early eighteenth century, a number of tribes lived in the area. The Ouacha (Washa)generally lived along Bayou Lafourche and in the Barataria Basin region, although they also traveled alongthe lower Mississippi River and the Gulf coast. The Chaouacha (Chawasha) apparently lived in the Scarsdale- Belle Chasse area near English Turn. Between 1699 and the mid-1700s, periodic conflict between theChaouacha and French settlers gradually depleted the tribe; by the late 1750s, only one small village of theChaouacha remained in the New Orleans region (Swanton 1946; Kniffen et al. 1987).

The late seventeenth century Chitimacha tribe apparently controlled much of the upper BaratarlaBasin along both Bayou Lafourche and the Mississippi River, Their population was decimated during theeighteenth century by disease, war, and cultural pressures applied by French settlers. In response toIncreasing pressure from the European settlers, the tribe moved into the largely unpopulated areas ofsoutheastern Louisiana; this enabled the tribe to survive into the twentieth century (Kniffen et al. 1987;Swanton 1946).

Several other tribes frequented the lower Mississippi River during the early eighteenth century,Including the Bayou Goula, the Qulnapisa, the Acolapissa, the Mugulasha, the Okelousa, and the

18

Tangipahoa. All of these tribes decreased rapidly in population through the eighteenth century as Frenchand Spanish settlers occupied increasing amounts of the region. During the eighteenth century, these tribesdied out, moved westward, or were assimilated Into remnant tribes scattered throughout the unpopulatedportions of southern Louisiana (Kniffen et al. 1987). By the mid to late eighteenth century, no Indian tribesremained in the general vicinity of the project area.

19

CHAPTER IV

CARROLLTON BEND:THE PROJECT AREA IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Introduction

The project area occupies a stretch of land extending along the east bank of the Mississippi Riverwithin Jefferson and Orleans parishes. Historically, the fertile soils of the Mississippi riverbank supportedthe agricultural production of indigo, sugar cane, and rice. Sugar remained a dominant crop in the regionthrough the nineteenth century. The project area witnessed the encroachment of suburban developmentbeginning in 1833, when a portion of the area was subdivided Into the village of Carrollton. The emergenceof the railroad during this period spurred the development of the town as an Independent city; In 1874,Carrollton was annexed to the City of New Orleans. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, riverfrontcommercial and residential structures were displaced by levee and revetment construction, the building ofthe Orleans Public Belt Railroad line, and modem development such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersoffices. This chapter presents a general historic context of the Carrollton Bend area and a discussion of thepotential for archeological resources within the study area.

French Occupancy of the Project Area, 1719 - 1724

During the early eighteenth century, France supported several attempts to colonize the Province ofLouisiana. In 1712, Sleur Crozat was authorized to establish trade within the colony. After his efforts failedand Crozat relinquished his patent in 1717, the King of France provided John Law's Mississippi Company(later known as the Western Company or the Company of the Indies) exclusive trading rights. The companyalso was authorized to grant land within the Province of Louisiana to promote settlement and agriculture(Ledet 1938:221-222, Swanson 1975:67).

Soon after he founded the city of New Orleans, Jean Baptiste le Moyne, the Sleur de Bienville,obtained a grant, in 1719, to an immense tract of land that included present-day Carrollton and most of theproject reach (Mah6 1976:11). The Company of the Indies confirmed this concession in 1720 (Swanson1975:67). Bienville's grant extended for eight miles upriver, from modem-day Bienville Street in the VieuxCarr6, to about Monticello Avenue, the boundary between Orleans and Jefferson parishes. Almostsimultaneously in 1719, John Law's the Company of the West began granting land immediately upriver fromthe Bienville tract to European Investors and a handful of Canadians. Usually known as the Chapitoulas orTchoupitoulas settlement, these early eighteenth century concessions extended along the so-called east sideof the Mississippi River from Monticello Avenue to Kenner (Bezou 1973:x, Swanson 1975:66). TheChapitoulas concessions also included a portion of the project area (Swanson 1975:65, 69; Wilson1987:6,225).

The Carrollton Area, 1728 - 1831

Although Bienville's grant was annulled in 1728 through the Edict of the Council of State atVersailles, the vast tract in the Carrollton area remained largely Intact for more than a century (Mah61976:12). The founder of New Orleans unsuccessfully attempted to regain control of the property until 1737.Beginning In the late 1720s, the land in the Carrollton vicinity passed successively first to Nicolas Chauvinde La FrnWnkre and then to his heirs, and his son-in-law, Louis C6saire LeBreton. LeBreton enlarged his

20

holdings by acquiring 12 arpents along the riverfront in 1751 and 15 arpents in 1758. The governors of theFrench colony confirmed these acquisitions in 1757 and 1764 respectively (Bezou 1973:32, 34-36, 71)

Upon LeBreton's death, Barthelemy Daniel Macarty in 1781 bought from the LeBreton successionan enormous tract that extended 32 arpents along the Carrollton Bend, where he established a sugarplantation (Ledet 1938:227). The purchase extended back from the river 40 arpents (Mah6 1976:12; Bezou1973:71). Barthelemy Macarty bequeathed the estate to his eldest son, Jean-Baptiste Macarty, who diedNovember 10, 1808. The will of Jean-Baptiste Macarty divided the property among his three children.Nevertheless, by 1831, the Macarty heirs had sold their interest in the estate to John Slidell, LaurentMillaudon, Samuel Kohn, and the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company. In 1833, the developers andthe banking company hired a surveyor, Charles F. Zimpel, divided the former plantation into lots andsquares, and offered it for sale as the village of Carrollton (Mahd 1976:10-12; Bezou 1973:70-73).

The Tchoupitoulas Settlements, 1719 - 1836

Although the spelling varied considerably through the years, the name of the settlement aboveCarrollton Bend had become standardized as Tchoupitoulas by 1825 (Foster 1987:16). Explanations for thename had as many variations as its spelling. The most popular exegesis argues that the name derives fromthe Choctaw language and means those who reside at the river (Chase 1979:41-48; Whitbread 1977).

Claude Joseph Dubreuil de Villars and three brothers named Chauvin became the firstconcessionaires at the Tchoupitoulas district. Dubreuil initially had arrived in the Louisiana Colonqy ca. 1718with his family, his partner Bernard Lantheaume, and his entourage of servants, artisans, and laborers (Bauer1987:21). Dubreuil established a large indigo plantation near the present site of Ochsner FoundationHospital. In addition to crop cultivation, Dubreuil experimented with animal husbandry, raising cattle, horses,and pigs (Bauer 1987:22). A slaveholder whose workmen helped to clear the site of the Crescent City andbuild the first levees, Dubreuil as contractor for the King's works built most of the early public structures inNew Orleans, including the Ursuline Convent (1745-1750), which still stands on Chartres Street.

In 1745, Dubrueil gave his Tchoupitoulas Plantation to his sons, while he developed a plantation onElysian Fields in today's Faubourg Marigny. Dubrueil was one of the first planters in Louisiana to experimentwith growing sugar cane after the introduction of the plant to the colony by Jesuit priests in 1750 (Wilson1980:55-56, Swanson 1975:67). However, his attempts at processing large quantities of the cane into qualitysugar for export to France failed (Bauer 1987:25-26). In the meantime, the Chauvin brothers utilized slavelabor, established a woodyard, sold lumber, raised cattle, and grew indigo, corn, potatoes, beans, and riceon their Tchoupitoulas holdings (Bezou 1973:23).

Two important studies graphically present a reconstruction of land ownership along theTchoupitoulas coast from the earliest European settlement to the nineteenth century. In his study of the DeLa Barres, a family long prominent in the project area, William D. Reeves offers a *Schematic Plan ofLandholdings on the Tchoupitoulas Coast 1723-1850" (Reeves 1980:45). Another graphic representation ofland ownership appears in an archeological study of Elmwood Plantation, which is located slightly upriverfrom the project area but nevertheless occupies a portion of the Tchoupitoulas settlement. The study ofElmwood provides an *Archival reconstruction of land ownership along the Chapitoulas Coast" that dealswith the Chauvin concessions from 1719 to 1836 (Goodwin et al. 1984:6). Because of errors and obscuritiesin the two previous graphic reoresentations, the present study includes a "Schematic representation of thegeneral land tenure history for the Carrollton Bend study reach, from concession grant to 1860" (Figure 4).

21

SbeSIt S. !

\VI , iil

rll

z_ l I , _ , !/ - -. - .. r&bL

22

Economic Development in the Project Area and Vicinity, 1728 - 1836

Agriculture and exportation provided the economic foundation of the project area and vicinity duringthis period. The fertile alluvial soil along the banks of the Mississippi supported successful plantations.Planters cultivated crops well-suited to the tropical climate. Indigo served as the primary cultigen, while rice,tobacco, wheat, beans, cotton, and corn also were grown (Swanson 1975:67). Initial settlers also exploitedthe local timber supply; lumber became a major export (Clark 1970:57). While agriculture and associatedindustries remained the dominant focus of Jefferson Parish, neighboring New Orleans served as a majorcenter for trade and export. Products such as indigo, rice, tobacco, indigo, lumber, pitch, tar, and myrtle-wax found ready markets in New Orleans (Clark 1970:55),

During the later eighteenth century, agricultural patterns changed to meet the changing demandsof the colony. As the profitability of Indigo declined and the demand for processed sugar soared, theprimary crops shifted from indigo to sugar. Cotton also emerged as a major agricultural product,Improvements In processing technology further spurred this alteration. During this period, an economicalprocesb of producing sugar from Immature cane was developed, and the Invention of the cotton gin allowedfor the production of cotton on a larger scale (Goodwin et al. 1985:42). By the early nineteenth century,sugar emerged as the dominant agricultural effort. The labor, water access, and capital required for sugarcane cultivation and refinirg dictated that only owners of larger plantations could undertake the process(Goodwin et al. 1985:48).

Lumber production also adjusted to meet new governmental and commercial demands. In additionto the needs prompted by the construction of new houses and business establishments, the Cuban sugartrade initiated a significant market for wooden boxes (Goodwin et al. 1985:37). By the early nineteenthcentury, sawmills were constructed to process more timbers. At that time, the growing demand for buildingmaterials prompted the construction of brickyards (Goodwin et al. 1985:53).

Incursions of the River at Carrollton Bend and Nearby

Before the Macarty Plantation became the suburb of Carrollton, the Macarty's dwelling housedisappeared with a cave-in along the banks of the river (Maho 1976:15). From the eighteenth century tothe present-day, the river has presented problems to urban planners. In 1816, the so-called Macartycrevasse (or break in the levee) occurred on the plantation where Carroilton is now situated. The crevasseflooded much of New Orleans until the breech was finally closed by sinking a vessel at the site. Accordingto a Jefferson Parish historian, the Macarty Crevasse ". . . is said to have been responsible for raising thelevel of the land with deposition of sift in what is now uptown New Orleans, thus prompting real estatedevelopments in the City of Lafayette and the faubourgs" (Swanson 1975:91). Another serious crevasseoccurred in 1849 on the Tchoupitoulas coast but just above the project area. The so-called Sauv6 Crevasseat Providence Plantation flooded much of the area of uptown New Orleans. The crevasse had no directeffect on the Carrollton settlement since most of that tiny community was located on higher ground closeto the river. Nevertheless, the crevasse ruined the sugar crops of all the planters In the Tchoupitoulassection. A contemporary chronicler of the sugar crop estimated the loss along the east coast of theMississippi River In Jefferson Parish to be "not less than 1200 hhds" or 600,000 pounds of sugar(Champomier 1849-1850:26). The crevasse also undoubtedly promoted the levee building in 1853, whichrequired the destruction or removal of some of the earliest buildings in Carrollton (Mah6 1976:76-77).

Vanished Structures at the Macarty Plantation, 1803 - 1863.

According to a Carlos Trudeau map of 1803, a canal and a sawmill stood on the Macarty Plantation,A historian of Carrollton has argued that the canal occupied the she developed as Canal (later called

23

Carroliton) Avenue (Mah6 1976:12,25). The sawmill stood at the head of the canal by the river's edge ata site that appears to have been lost to the Mississippi River by 1853. An inventory of 1826 indicates thatthe plantation buildings included a sugar house, a master's house, storehouses, and slave cabins, Theinventory also counted 21 horses, 5 mules, 83 oxen, 20 cows, 5 heifers, 17 calves. 40 hogs, and extensiveagricultural equipment. No less than 110 slaves labored on the estate (Bezou 1973:72). While the housewas lost to the river by 1834, another structure appears on early maps. The H-shaped building, its purposeunidentified, survived until 1863 when it was burned by Federal troops encamped in the area (Mah61976:14).

The de Bor6 Plantation, 1781 - 1834

Although just outside the project area, the plantation of Etienne de Bor6 has such historicalsignificance that it requires mention. Bor6 acquired the property in 1781; there, in 1795, he successfullygranulated sugar, an experiment usually credited with inaugurating the sugar cane industry of LouisianaBy 1834, D. F. Burthe had acquired the property; the Zimpel map of that year depicts the old plantationhouse and grounds. The site is now part of Audubon Park. No trace of the plantation remains (Wilson1980:73-76).

The Development of Carrollton

Origin of the Name

In 1876, William H. Williams, a post Civil War surveyor and land developer, declared that the nameCarrollton derived from General William Carroll. who commanded Kentucky troops at the Battle of NewOrleans and supposedly camped on the Macarty Plantation in 1814 (Bezou 197371-72). Carrollsubsequently became Governor of Tennessee and visited New Orleans in 1825, where he received a hero'swelcome (Chase 1979:100).

At least one historian has argued that the name of the village honored Charles Carroll of Carrollton,the only Catholic and last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence (Perittoux 1945:4-6). Sincethe earliest streets in the village honored American statesmen, the argument may have validity. CertainlyCarroll's wealth and extreme fiscal conservatism would have appealed to the entrepreneurs who createdCarrollton.

The Sale of Lots in Carrollton

In January 1832, the last of the Macarty heirs came of age and ratified the sale of the familyplantation. Ownership of the property passed to three entrepreneurs and their banking company, whodivided control as follows: the New Orleans Canal and Banking Company held 10/20th of the property:Samuel Kohn 5/20th; Laurent Millaudon 4/20th; and, John Slidell 1/20th. The new owners hired CharlesF. Zimpel, a surveyor and engineer, to draw a plan dividing the acreage Into squares. His completed plancreated squares of 650 ft in depth and width. Two lots, each 325 x 650 ft, occupied each square (Periloux1945).

In the meantime, the entrepreneurs hired Isaac S. McCoy, a licensed auctioneer. On May 1, 1833,McCoy conducted a public auction at the New Exchange Coffee House in New Orleans in which lots in thevillage of Carrollton were offered for sale. The sale proved to be a financial success for the developers(Perilloux 1945)

24

The Railroad to Carrollton

No doubt orchestrated by the entrepreneurs who developed Carrollton, a group of railroad boostersheld a public meeting in 1832 to urge a railroad between New Orleans and the fledgling village. In February1833, several months before the Carrollton auction, the Louisiana legislature chartered the New Orleans andCarrollton Railroad. The railroad began laying tracks in 1834 and on September 26, 1835, began passengerservice (Mah6 1976:26-40). By 1836, steam cars commuted between New Orleans and Carrollton every twohours, seven days a week (Swanson 1975:105).

The railroad built its depot near the juncture of Canal (Carrolfton) and First (St. Charles). Thenotable Crescent City architects, James Gallier, Jr. and John Turpin, designed and built an elaborate Gothicrevival addition to the depot In 1851. Cast Iron was used In the construction, and the building containeda clock tower (Swanson 1975:105). The structure was demolished when the levee was expanded in 1891.

In the words of John Chase, the railroad in a single generation 'transformed a rural countryside intothe premier residential neighborhood of New Orleans' (Chase 1979:121). The railroad improvedcommunication and stimulated business interaction between Carrollton and New Orleans, which contributedto the village's growth (Ledet 1938:235). Nevertheless, Carrollton remained a village in Jefferson Parish formany years. It was incorporated by the legislature in 1845 and became a city in 1859. Carrollton wasannexed to the City of New Orleans on March 23, 1874 (Swanson 1975:106).

Carroilton Hotel and Gardens

In tandem with the railroad was the erection in 1835 of the Carrollton Hotel and Gardens,constructed to stimulate the village's economic growth (Ledet 1938:238). The project was successful inluring large numbers of city dwellers to the village on exrursions (Swanson 1975:105). Fire destroyed thehotel in 1842, but the structure was rebuilt almost immediately due to its profitability (Ledet 1938:239).According to one historian:

The Carrollton hotel, the first resort hostelry opened in Jefferson, attracted a large clienteletransported by the trains while horse fanciers rode to the Eclipse Course after 1838. Fora fare of 371h cents, city dwellers could and did indulge in shooting galleries, regattas,dances, bowling greens, cricket clubs, tenpin alleys, and card games, all available inCarrollton (Bezou 1973:73)

According to the Zimpel map of 1834, the Belle Point Race Course was already in operation nearthe river just below Lowerline Street when the suburb of Carrollton was created. The course attracted manytourists to the Carrollton resort.

The Carrollton hotel, which became known as Carrollton Gardens, had a long and successfuloperation. In 1879 a guide to New Orleans described a visit there:

The trip to Carrollton is deservedly one of the most popular excursions in the neighborhoodof the city. Here are situated the Carrollton Gardens, which for many years have been afavorite resort with our people, and a place much admired by strangers .... The spaciouswalks are lined with the choicest flowers, whose bloom and fragrance are especiallyattractive to those who come from the North, where snow and ice greet the eye on everyhand. Instead of snowballs, the visitor may obtain an exquisitely arranged bouquet or the

25

rarest of plants, and in place of sleet and ice, he will see a verdure most pleasing to thesenses. Connected with the gardens there Is a spacious building with large, airy andcomfortable rooms . kept as a private family hotel, on the European plan, with arestaurant, where the most inviting meals, with all the substantials and delicacies affordedby our markets may be obtained ... (Waldo 1879:24).

A steamboat landing in the vicinity of the hotel provided a disembarkation point for hotel visitors. However,guests generally returned to the city by rail (Ledet 1938:239-240). The hotel and gardens survived until 1891when the new levee constructed In that year required its demolition (Mah6 1976:217).

Samuel Short, An Early Settler In Carrollton

Samuel Short built the first residence In Carrollton at a site between Canal Street (the presentCarrollton Avenue) and Short Street. Built close to the river, Short's house was lost to a cave-in a few yearsafter its erection. Short also built the first lumber and shingle mill In Carrollton on the comer of Canal andFirst (today's Carrollton and St. Charles). Short developed the area bounded by the river, First Street, Canal,and Washington. Unfortunately, he lost everything in the Panic of 1837 (Mah6 1976:71-74).

The Lumber Industry in Carrollton

Although Samuel Short disappeared after the Panic of 1837, often enterprising men entered Into thelumber trade In Carrollton. Wood became the focus of industry in Carrollton for many years. Frederick A.Raslar was the so-called father of the woodyard business in the village. He established a woodyard andsawmill at the head of Monroe Street in the upper section of Carrollton. Raslar had the advantage ofselecting the first of the free, floating timber rounding the river bend. The batture along his propertycontained a large pool of water having two outlets to the river. Logs collected in this basin supplied thesawmills behind the levee. Nevertheless, the pool on the batture created problems for the neighborhood.In 1853, a new levee was built, and Raslar was required to move his business. He relocated his lumberbusiness to Jefferson Street (Ledet 1937; Mah6 1976:76-77). Another sawmill stood at the comer ofCarrollton and Commercial between city blocks 51 and 68.

The Jefferson and Lake Pontchartrain Railroad

The success of the New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad seems to have inspired emulation. In 1851,work began on a second railroad, the Jefferson and Lake Pontchartrain. Completed in 1853, it ran fromCarrollton along the boundary between Orleans and Jefferson parishes to the lake. The president of the newrailroad, G. Currie Duncan, successfully petitioned the Carrollton Council to set aside a portion of the leveebetween the lower line of Canal (Carrollton) Avenue and the upper line of Jefferson (Joliet) Street forsteamboats only. As a result, the Jefferson and Lake Pontchartrain had a landing on the river fortransporting passengers to the Carrollton Hotel and for moving cargo to and from the lake. The railroadcontinued in operation until the Civil War. The line was abandoned in 1864 for lack of profitability (Mah61976:114-116; Swanson 1975:98).

Steamboat Landing, Ferries, and Waterborne Commerce

A popular outing for New Orleanians was to take the steamer to Carrollton, spend a few hours atthe Carrollton Gardens, and return to the Crescent City by rail. Beginning In 1845, a ferry also operated

26

from Carrollton across the Mississippi; its landing was situated between Madison (Dante) and Jefferson(Joliet) Streets. Originally just a skiff, the ferry became steam-powered in 1868. In the meantime, flatboatslanded at the lumber mills operating on the batture or behind the levee. On the eve of the Civil War, brigs,schooners, sloops, flatboats, and keelboats could be found tied up along the Carroilton waterfront.

In 1871, soon after the close of the Civil War, the city of Carrollton erected a wharf at the head ofMadison (Dante) Street. The structure was 250 ft long and cost $8246.19. It was constructed by the firmof Drumm and Hardy. With the expansion of uptown New Orleans, residents of the Garden District forcedthe removal of slaughter houses from the suburb of Lafayette. As a consequence, a few of the slaughterhouses relocated In Carrollton in an area bounded by the river, Clinton, Lowedine, and Ann (Garfield). Astock landing occupied the batture between Clinton and Lowerline. Numerous flatboats utilized the landing(Mah6 1976:188-190).

Levee Street

Levee Street, a nineteenth century thoroughfare that has now disappeared completely, served until1891 as the major commercial street in Carrollton. In 1845, the newly incorporated Carrollton City Councildesignated Levee as "an important public street;" not until the 31lowing year, however, was the thoroughfareopened. Levee ran near the lumber industries and intersected all the streets running to the rear of the town.

Before 1853, businesses flanked both sides of Levee Street. Nevertheless, the construction of a newlevee in 1853 required the demolition or removal of all structures on the river side. Levee continued toprosper thereafter. The main commercial establishments were between Madison (Dante) and Cambronne.In 1883, only five buildings along the street were constructed of brick. Mah6, a Carrollton historian, haspresented a detailed description of buildings along Levee Street (Mah6 1976:123-125). In 1891, theencroachment of the river required the removal of the remaining businesses on the land side of Levee Street.The railroad station, the Carrollton Hotel, and other important structures associated with the early historyof Carrollton were thus lost (Mah6 1976:127, 218).

The Civil War in the Project Area

Although no military engagements of any consequence took place in the project area during the CivilWar, the vicinity assumed importance in defending the upriver approaches to New Orleans. TheConfederates began to build fortifications on the east side of the Mississippi River in Jefferson Parish onAugust 22, 1861; the works were situated along the present route of Causeway Boulevard. In September1861, the New Orleans Daily Picayune described the parapet as nine feet high with a moat thirty feet wideand six feet in depth. On March 21, 1862, the fortifications were named Fort John Morgan. After thecapture of New Orleans, Federal forces changed the name to Camp Parapet and used the fortifications forboth defense and as an occupation garrison. The presence of large numbers of African American soldiersgarrisoned at Camp Parapet makes the site noteworthy for African American history.

Construction of Fort Moroan

Although Confederate military officials considered New Orleans amply defended by two forts locatedon the Mississippi River south of New Orleans, they could not exclude the possibility of an attack from thenorth. To defend the northern approaches to the city, they constructed a fortified line about six miles aboveNew Orleans at Carrollton, Louisiana. The main line of defenses ran in a zig-zag pattern from the edge ofthe Mississippi River to a nearby swamp. The two ends were anchored by redoubts, with the principalredoubt near the Mississippi River. The works stood nine feet high and were twenty-seven feet thick at the

27

base. A seven to nine foot deep ditch fronted the earthworks (Casey 1983:145-147, Green 1982:290;Harpers Weekly May 24, 1862; RG 77, Drawer 133, Sheet 77). Newspapers called the line of fortificationsthe Victor Smith line in honor of the son of Major M. L Smith, C.S.A., who supervised the operations. OnMarch 21, 1862, Major General M. Lovell named the fortifications Fort John Morgan In honor of theConfederate bushwacker in Kentucky.

For armament, the Confederates mounted an impressive array of artillery. The heavy guns consistedof nine 42-pound cannon, two 32-pound cannon, nine 24-pound cannon, and four 18-pound cannon. Thefortifications proved Irrelevant to the defense of New Orleans. When a Federal expedition led by Union FlagOfficer David Glasgow Farragut captured New Orleans (from downrlver) In April 1862, Union troops tookover Fort Morgan. The Rebels had no time to remove their guns; according to one account they threw 15of them in the river. Other reports Indicate that le Confederates spiked the guns and burned the carriages.

Union Occupation of Fort Parapet

Following the capture of New Orleans, the Federals immediately began Improving the fortifications,renaming the site Fort Parapet. Abandoned Confederate guns were repaired and placed on the ramparts.The portion of land behind the parapets was used for encampments of Union soldiers (Casey 1983:145-145).An 1863 map shows the main redoubt to be on the Mississippi River levee with a camp ground next to it.The fortifications ran in a zig-zag line towards the lake. The powder magazine of the main redoubt stillsurvives at the end of Arlington Street. Through the efforts of historic preservationists in Jefferson Parish,the structure was placed in May 1977 on the National Register (Casey 1983:145-147).

The exact number of Federal troops occupying Camp Parapet varied with time, and regiments wererotated in and out. The post returns for February 1863 show five infantry regiments and two artillerybatteries, totaling 2,611 soldiers ("Returns of Posts Camps and Stations" National Archives Microform M 617,Roll 898). Unfortunately, the post returns for most of the time prior to 1865 are missing. Regimentalhistories of the 15th and 16th New Hampshire Volunteers record that soldiers moved within the vicinityduring the winter of 1862/1863 (McGregor 1900:222-224; Townsend 1897:52-70). The first Unioncommander was the Vermont General John Phelps, but he resigned following a quarrel with General Butlerover the organization of black soldiers (Cornish 1956:62).

For the average soldier, duty at Camp Parapet was one of constant drudgery, as indicated in theaccount of the 15th New Hampshire regiment:

Here we settled into a daily routine of camp life, with seldom anything to break themonotony. Daily company, regimental, and brigade drills, Neal Dow, brigadier-generalcommanding. How many and many times has our regiment marched in line and column,formed hollow squares, formed from column into line of battle, and from line back tocolumn; by fours, by platoons, by companies; and charged quick and double quick; fixedbayonets and unfixed bayonets, and fired with blank cartridges under that burning sun ...until the whole could move as if by instinct like one vast machine (McGregor 1900:223).

Problems of disease and death soon overshadowed the monotony of camp life. Camp Parapet waslocated on low ground, near the swamp. The combination of living in tents on the muddy grounds and theexposure to southern diseases caused heavy casualties among the soldiers, especially during their firstmonths. One officer from the 15th New Hampshire wreoe home that "A malarial fever carried many boysto their graves, and one could almost anytime hear the band playing a funeral dirge as the body was borneto its last resting place* (McGregor 1900:224). The regimental history of the 15th New Hampshire described

28

the effects of fever upon the patient. 'A man would be stricken suddenly with these fevers, and in an halfhour his eyes would turn yellow, and vomiting spells would ensue; the skin would become hot so as to bumthe hand like a gun barrel... Unless relief was afforded the victim would die within a day's time" (McGregor1900:216; Swanson 1975:130).

To distract themselves from the miserable conditions, the soldiers turned to alcohol. One rainy nightin September 1862, the garrison moved to the ramparts because of a false alarm; a captain realized that thegreater part of his men were drunk (Green 1982:300). This Incident coincided with a payday. From January1863 to May 1863, the famous Maine temperance reformer Neal Dow commanded the post. Dow haddrafted the most stringent prohibition law in antebellum America, which was generally called the Maine Law.He presumably did his best to prevent the consumption of alcohol at Camp Parapet (Dow 1898:687).

Employment of African American Soldiers at Camp Parapet

The history of Camp Parapet also is noteworthy for its part in the story of African Americans In themilitary. One of the first attempts to organize black units occurred at Camp Parapet during the summer of1862. Later in the course of the war, black regiments formed the majority of the garrison at Camp Parapet.One of the units to serve at Camp Parapet, the Third Battalion, 1 1th United States Colored Artillery, differedfrom most other black regiments in that it originated in Rhode Island among northern African Americans.The importance of these events are outlined below.

Shortly after the Union occupation of Camp Parapet, fugitive slaves entered the camp. In 1862,Uncoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not yet in effect, so these people still were considered slavesunder Federal law. Nonetheless, Major General Benjamin F. Butler previously had established a *contrabandof war" doctrine which could justify the sheltering of fugitives at Camp Parapet.

The camp commander, Brigadier General John Phelps, was an abolitionist from Vermont who wentfurther than Butler wished In sheltering fugitive slaves. Butler issued an order excluding unemployed AfricanAmericans from the military camps, which Phelps ignored. He sheltered blacks who came into the camp,and used able-bodied workers to repair the fortifications (Green 1982:293). The issue of fugitive slaves atCamp Parapet eventually reached the War Department and President. In July 1862, the President supportedPhelps's decision to provide shelter for African Americans at the post. The Secretary of War, EdwardStanton, wrote to General Butler that,

He [Lincoln] is of opinion that, under the law of Congress, they cannot be sent back to theirmasters; that in common humanity they must not be permitted to suffer for want of food,shelter or other necessaries of life: that to this end, they should be provided for by theQuartermaster's and Commissary's Departments; and that those who are capable of laborshould be set to work and paid reasonable wages.

In directing this to be done, the President does not mean, at present, to settle any generalrule in respect to slaves or slavery, but simply to provide for the particular case under thecircumstances In which it is now presented.

Butler complained to his wife that the President's support of Phelps would result in a slave Insurrection(Butler 1917:2:41-42, 109).

Phelps would soon create even greater consternation for Butler. On 30 July 1862, he wrote to Butlerfrom Camp Parapet requesting arms and accoutrements for three black regiments that he was organizing.

29

He argued that his men were dying at the rate of two or three per day, and that regiments of fugitive slaveswere necessary to find sufficient soldiers. Butler responded by adamantly refusing permission to arm fugitiveslaves, pointing out that the Federal government rejected a similar request in captured islands on the Atlanticcoast. He directed that Phelps continue to employ African Americans in repairing the earthworks and incutting trees surrounding the camp. After a bitter exchange of notes, Phelps resigned in protest of Butler'spolicies (Butt'- 1917:2: 125-127, 142-146; Butler 1892:488-490; Cornish 1956:58-62).

Shortly afterwards, on August 22, Butler organized one of the first African Americans regiments inthe Army. This regiment consisted of New Orleans free-born blacks, not fugitive slaves. After theEmancipation Proclamation became effective in January 1863, the Union Army enlisted black soldiers, bothfree-born and freedmen, in large numbers. Butler's successor, Nathaniel Banks, organized AfricanAmericans regiments into the Corps d'Afrique.

The next record of black troops at Camp Parapet appear in the post returns for Camp Parapetbeginning In June 1865. These records indicate that by this date, the garrison complement at Camp Parapetconsisted of three African American regiments: the 87th US Colored Infantry, the 77th US Colored Infantry,and the Third Battalion 11 th US Colored Artillery (Heavy) (rRetums of Posts, Camps & Stations" MicroformM 617, Roll 898).

The regimental books of the 77th Infantry are not available at the National Archives. The recordsof the 87th Infantry indicate that the soldiers were freedmen recruited in Louisiana (RG 94, RegimentalBooks, 87th US Colored Infantry, Descriptive Book). The regiment served in Texas before moving to CampParapet in May or June 1865. Once at Camp Parapet, the soldiers settled into garrison life similar to theirwhite counterparts. The daily routine was dominated by morning and afternoon drills followed by an eveningparade. Some soldiers performed guard mount duties, while others attended to their weapons andequipment (RG 94, Regimental Books, 87th US Colored Infantry, Orders Book, especially General OrdersNo. 10).

The 11th US Colored Artillery (Heavy) had a notably different organizational history from otherAfrican American regiments of the Civil War. The regiment was recruited in Rhode Island among northernblacks beginning in September 1863. The regiment originally was a state volunteer regiment, designatedthe 14th Rhode Island Heavy Artillery (Colored) (Chenery 1898:2-8). The regimental books indicate thatsoldiers were born throughout the northeastern states, with a few southern-born blacks also joining theregiment (RG 94, Regimental Books, 11th US Colored Artillery, Descriptive Book).

After training in Rhode Island, the regiment moved to the Department of the Gulf in February 1864.In May of 1864, the regiment was redesignated the 8th United States Colored Artillery. The finalreorganization occurred at the end of June 1864 when the regiment was redesignated the 11 th US ColoredArtillery (Heavy). The First Battalion was located at Fort Jackson, on the Mississippi south of New Orleans.The Second Battalion originally was located at the town of Plaquemine (between Baton Rouge ard NewOrleans), but later moved to Fort Butler, near Donaldsonville. The Third Battalion, under the Command ofUeutenant Colonel Nelson Vail, assumed responsibility for Camp Parapet.

Once they settled in Camp Parapet, the soldiers of the Third Battalion assumed the samemonotonous routine that characterized garrison life for white soldiers. Morning and afternoon drillsdominated the daily routine. Occasionally drill was discontinued so that the soldiers could repair thefortifications or perform other necessary labor (RG 94, Regimental Books 11 th US Colored Artillery, OrdersBook, Orders Book, and Letter Book). The commander established evening schools for the officer and non-commissioned officers (Chenery 1898:106). Even after the war had ended, soldiers continued to performduties in town as a provost guard (RG 94, Regimental Books, 11 th US Colored Artillery, Letter Book, ThirdBattalion).

30

The pattern of disease and death that characterized camp life throughout the Civil War also affectedthese soldiers. Evidently previous regiments had constructed wooden shelters, which were occupied by the11th Artillery soldiers. Although these shelters were an Improvement over tents, soldiers still sufferedseverely from the unhealthy camp conditions. Funerals were so common that the battalion commanderordered that funeral music be discontinued because the constant sound of the "dead march" was toodepressing (Chenery 1898:45, 107, 105).

In September 1865, the regiment was order disbanded. Its three battalions were concentrated atCamp Parapet, prior to final transportation back to Rhode Island. The entire regiment assembled for a finaldress parade of nearly 1,400 men at the camp. Yet 500 men were absent; they either had died or receivedmedical discharges while in service (Chenery 1898:146).

The East Bank of the River above Carrollton

Residential, Industrial, and commercial development did not occur along the east bank aboveCarrollton until well into the twentieth century. Prior to that time, the area remained agricultural (rhoede1976:116).

Sucar Plantina Alona the East Bank

The SauvM Crevasse of 1849 severely affected various members of the Arnoult family, who hadoccupied the project area since 1825 (Figure 4). The 1850 agricultural census documented that the AmoultBrothers owned 900 acres, 400 of which were improved. The value of their property was given as$30,000.00. Livestock included 3 horses, 28 mules, 8 milch cows, 35 oxen, and 10 other cattle valued at$1,200.00. They produced 12,000 bushels of corn, 140 tons of hay, 300 1000-pound hogsheads of canesugar, and 12,000 gallons of molasses. By 1858, they had abandoned sugar production altogether.

In 1870, when T. and J. Arnouldt [sic] were listed separately in the agricultural census, their estateswere greatly reduced. T. Arnoult owned 15 improved acres and no unimproved land. His farm was valuedat $10,000.00, and he paid $1,200.00 in wages for the year 1869 - 1870. Livestock included two horses,three mules, and two milch [sic] cows, all valued at $500.00. He produced 8,000 bushels of corn, 14bushels of Irish potatoes, and 100 bushels of sweet potatoes; all products from the farm had a total valueof $2,000.00. J. Arnouldt [sic] owned 45 improved acres and 200 unimproved acres. His property wasvalued at $11,500.00. Arnouldt paid $300.00 in wages for the year 1869 - 1870. Livestock on the farmincluded one horse, three mules, and three milch [sic] cows valued at $250.00. J. Arnoult produced 600bushels of corn, 350 bushels of Irish potatoes, and 200 bushels of sweet potatoes; all farm produce had atotal value of $2,000.00.

In 1858, only members of the De La Barre or LaBarre family continued to produce sugar in theproject area. The Statement of the Sugar Crop for 1859 indicates that P. L La Barre and F. La Barretogether harvested 170 hogsheads. In 1857, P. L. La Barre built a mansion at Whitehall, just outside theproject. The project area, nevertheless, Includes much of his agricultural holdings. In 1860, he held 56slaves and valued his real property at $35,000.00, his personal property at $65,000.00. In 1860, he produced65 1,000-pound hogsheads of sugar and 11,000 gallons of molasses (Menn 1963:255-256).

After the CMI War, the La Barres still tried to produce sugar at Whitehall. The 1870 agriculturalcensus lists F. P. La Barre and Company of Jefferson Parish as owning 1,200 acres, 400 of which wereImproved. The plantation was valued at $30,000.00. Livestock included 10 horses, 16 mules, 10 milch [sicicows, 10 working oxen, and 12 other cattle, all valued at $1,000.00. The company produced 3,000 bushelsof corn, 1,200 bushels of Irish potatoes, 900 bushels of sweet potatoes, 60 tons of hay, 60 hogsheads (at

31

1,000 pounds each) of cane sugar, and 2,400 gallons of molasses. D. La Barre, also of Jefferson Parish,was listed in the census Individually as owner of 400 acres, 100 of them improved. He paid $300 00 inwages. Livestock included three horses, four mules, and one milch [sic] cow, all valued at $900.00 Hegrew 700 bushels of corn, 300 bushels of Irish potatoes, 300 bushels of sweet potatoes, but no sugar caneThe total value of his farm products was $1,800.00- By the 1880s, the La Barres had given up the effort togrow sugar cane (Bouchereau 1875:34, 1876:77, 1881.10, 1889 51), They were the last major sugarproducers in the project area.

A directory of landings along the Mississippi River In 1881 lists Carrollton. Camp Parapet (which inthe postbellum era became briefly a settlement), Charles Hodges, and Whitehall (the La Barre plantation),in the project area (Cayton 1881:17-35). Hodges' primary agricultural operations were located at the siteof the former Kenner sugar plantations, upriver from the project area-

Other Developments Along the East Bank

Just above Monticello Avenue, there developed during the mId-nineteenth century a subdivsionknown as New Carrollton. It occupied a small area, two blocks wide by four blocks deep An 1894Mississippi River Commission map shows 59 buildings in the area (Swanson 1975:107).

During the middle of the nineteenth century, the settlement took the name of John Hoe or Hoey,who operated a brickyard with three kilns at the site. He also manufactured saddle and harnesses as wellas wheelbarrows at the site (Swanson 1975:107).

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the area just above the parish line and now occupied byOchsner Hospital was known as Southport. A steamship wharf was located there in 1894 and variousrailroad spurs provided connections to the major lines (Swanson 1975 107),

Additional developments such as Oakland, Harlem, and Shrewsberry appeared during the mid-nineteenth century. These settlements occupied an area two blocks wide by 77 blocks deep However, theareas apparently were not fully developed until the twentieth century (Swanson 1975t107).

Economic Development In the Project Area, 1836 - Twentieth Century

The Jefferson Parish economy on the east side of the Mississippi River remained predominantlyagricultural through the Civil War, with sugar and cotton remaining the dominant crops (Goodwin et al.1985:47-53; Huber 1991:8). The economy of the Carrollton area changed as the village evolved from aregion of agricultural development into a vacation spot and bedroom community for New Orleans (Ledet1938:23).

As Jefferson Parish focused on agriculture, the project area within Orleans Parish experienced theencroachment of the City of New Orleans; as mentioned above, the City of Carrollton became a part of thecity in 1874 (Swanson 1975:106). New Orleans continued to function as a major exporting point for localgoods until the Civil War; during this period, the port city was second in importance only to New York,Cotton remained a major export (Huber 1991:8) Other commercial enterprises prospered in the city,including retail shops for clothing, millinery, imported glass and tableware. Offices and warehouses forcommodities such as cotton and sugar also served as a vital economic influence in the area (Huber1991:7).

The Civil War stifled economic development in New Orleans. Rather than export goods producedon their plantations, many landowners utilized their agricultural products for subsistence purposes, other

32

materials were commandeered by Union or Confederate troops. This decline in marketable goods produceda debilitating effect on the port of New Orleans and associated industries (Beavers et al. 198031). Followingthe war, the city slowly recovered and "esumed shipping actrvities. Efforts to deepen the city's portimproved its potential to meet and surpass former levels of trade (Beavers et al. 1980:31).

The agricultural component of the area's economy also shifted after the Civil War, as the cottonmarket plummeted and sugar slowly regained its Importance. Although sugar production experienced aslowdown during the 1870s, production of the crop Increased significantly through the beginning of thetwentieth century. Technological advances In sugar production and a reorientation of the organizationalsystem from family management to modem corporate Industrial management contributed to this increase(Goodwin at al. 1985:57,61).

The Cotton Centennial Exposition of 1884-1885 further signaled New Orleans' return to commercialprominence (Huber 1991:11). During the late nineteenth century and Into the twentieth century, Industryemerged In the city and played an Increasing vital role In the local economy (Beavers et al. 1980232). Asthe twentieth century progressed in Jefferson Parish, truck farming rapidly gained prominence In agriculture.This small farm vegetable production gradually replaced sugar cultivation and processing, however, rice andcotton remained viable crops (Goodwin et al. 1985:66; Swanson 1975:98). In addition to agriculture, theexploitation of natural resources such as lumber and fur bolstered the local economy (Goodwin at al,1985:67-71).

Carrollton Bond Revetment

The Federal Government in 1882 approved funds for the Carroliton Bend Revetment as part of majorimprovements in New Orleans harbor. In 1891. the Corps of Engineers constructed three new dikes atCarrollton Bend. The construction cost $78,688.00 (U.S. Army Corps - Engineers 1967). Leveeconstruction in 1853 previously had destroyed the river side of Levee Street it Carrollton: the constructionprogram of 1891 demolished the remaining buildings on the land side, Including the Gallier-designed railroaddepot and the Carrollton Hotel and Gardens.

In 1892, the Corps built two more dikes measuring 300 ft and costing $27,860,00. The following yearmats measuring 1,200 linear ft were installed. The Corps utilized only willow framed medius on the projectfor many years; by 1925, 14,905 linear ft of new footage had been installed at the Carrollton BendRevetment. The construction cost $649,351.00 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987).

Not until 1932 did the Corps begin utilizing articulated concrete mating at the Carrolhton BendRevetment. Thereafter, asphalt mating was employed until 1967, when articulated concrete mating, 1770squares, was once more Installed. In 1973, 1,063 squares of articulated concrete mating again were utilized.In the ititerlin, minor repairs were made with stone (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987).

The Mississippi River Commission Map, 1921

By 1921, Carrollton Bend had developed into its modem configuration. The nineteenth century sitesassociated with the early development of Carrollton had disappeared. Of the wharves and landings ofCarrollton, only the Walnut Street Ferry's pier and a landing at the Standard Oil Company remained.Wharves still existed just below Southport and at the facility of the American Creosote Company. Railroadtracks blanketed the area. These railroads were used for shipping freight rather than for fostering excursionsfrom New Orleans.

33

The Potential for Archeological Resources within the Project Area

The potential for encountering significant archeological resources within the project area isdependent on several Interrelated factors, Including lateral migration of the Mississippi River, distribution ofhistoric development, and disturbances to archeological resources caused by levee and revetmentconstruction, and modem land-use. As discussed in Chapter II, comparison of the 1893 and 1921Mississippi River Commission Charts 75 and 76 with the modem topographic quadrangle illustrates theextent that lateral migration has effected In the project area (Figure 3). Upriver from the existing CarrolltonBend Revetment, the batture has aggraded throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries With theexception of 30 to 50 m (98.4 to 164 ft) situated adjacent to the modern levee, the entire batture postdatesia. 1893. Historic maps illustrate that the batture as undeveloped and covered with rver willow Anysubstantive archeological resources In the area would lie underneath or landward from the modem artificiallevee.

On the other hand, the downriver portion of the project area, corresponding with the existingCarroliton Bend Revetment, formed a cutting bank throughout the nineteenth century. Historic referencesdescribe various structures, such as the Macarty Plantation big house and the Samuel Short residence,being destroyed by riverine cutting early in the nineteenth century, This riverine cutting necessitated twomajor nineteenth century levee setbacks. In 1853, a levee setback necessitated destruction of numerouscommercial businesses located along the riverside of Levee Street, in Carrollton. Riverfront businesses alsowere moved or destroyed at that time, including the sawmills of Frederick Raslar. A second levee setback,in 1891, destroyed Levee Street and resulted in removal of the buildings located on the land side of the road.These buildings included numerous commercial structures such as the elaborate Gothic revival railroaddepot, the New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad depot, and the popular Carrollton Hotel and Gardens Whilethe initial revetment at Carrollton was constructed as early as 1893. the river continued to cut well Into the1920s (Figure 3). Since that time, the Carroilton Bend Revetment has stabilized the bankline, and riverinecutting has been minimal.

Levee and revetment constructions, construction of the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad lines thatlie adjacent to the levee (Figure 1), and modem development of the area have damaged or destroyednumerous potentially significant archeological resources that originally were located along the river. Sincefew historic maps are available that depict the locations of the individual nineteenth and early twentiethcentury structures and businesses that were destroyed, anticipated archeological locations of most of theseresources cannot be ascertained without extensive property-specific research, this lies beyond the scopeof this study.

Examination of several historic maps, including the 1834 Charles Zimpel map and the 1893 and 1921Mississippi River Commission Charts, provides preliminary information about anticipated sites in the projectarea. Throughout much of the nineteenth century, Levee Street, which extended along the waterfront inCarrollton, was lined with businesses and residences. As mentioned above, the riverside structures alongLevee Street were destroyed during the 1853 levee setback, while the street itself and the land sidestructures were razed during the 1891 levee setback. The former Levee Street lies underneath the modemlevee; remains of associated buildings are anticipated underneath the levee and the adjacent railroad lines,and on the batture adjacent to the levee. Since archeological remains associated with the structuresdestroyed In 1853 have been Impacted b%; two levee setbacks (1853 and 1891) and subsequent leveeenlargements, and the structures razed In 1891 have been impacted by the 1891 levee construction,subsequent levee enlargements, and construction of the railroad lines, it is anticipated that most of theassociated archeological deposits will be damaged extenst4ely or destroyed.

Waterfront resources also have been impacted extensively by post-depositional natural and culturalevents. Until the 1920s, the river continued to cut into the bankline, gradually destroying nineteenth centuryresources located near the river. In addition, late nineteenth and twentieth century revetment construction

34

necessitated the grading of the bankline, further impacting potential cultural resources. These resourcesthat apparently were destroyed Included various residential buildings, as well as numerous commercialbusinesses such as sawmills and wharves. For example, a steamship wharf located at Southport In the1890s was destroyed by riverine cutting prior to the 1920s. However, remains associated with some earlytwentieth century rtvedne businesses may survive within the project area, including wharf remains associatedwith the American Creosote Company, near Southport and a second unnamed wharf near Southport,remains of Standard Oil Company structures on the batture near the foot of Carrollton, and Walnut StreetFerry remains on the batture at the foot of Walnut Street.

Nineteenth and early twentieth century archeological deposits may underlie the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, New Orleans District offices. Remains associated with the 1853 levee setback may extendthrough the entire reservation, in the vicinity of the main levee alignment. In addition, remains associatedwith rivenne businesses such as sawmills may occur within the reservation; precise locations of theseanticipated businesses remain unclear. By 1893, a levee passed through the reservation area, and most ofthe reservation apparently was not developed. The reservation property was acquired by the FederalGovernment In the early twentieth century, and the initial Corps of Engineers Depot was established. It wasbuilt on a considerable amount of fill to raise the facility above annual flood waters. By 1921, several largebuildings and a railroad spur were constructed within the reservation. These initial constructions probablydamaged archeological resources located within the area. However, the fill upon which the modem facilityis built has protected any surviving nineteenth century resources from most modem construction.Constructions that are confined to the fill deposit will not substantively damage archeological resources thathave survived underneath it.

35

CHAPTER V

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Previous Cultural Resources Surveys in the Vicinity of the Project Area

Several previous cultural resources surveys have been performed within the area of the MississippiRiver natural levee between Harahan, Louisiana and the Harvey Canal (River Miles 108 - 98). In 1974,Shenkel (1974) conducted preliminary excavations at Elmwood Plantation (16JE138) to obtain informationabout the age of the big house, and to assess the archeological potential of the plantation remains. Oneexcavation unit, of unspecified size, was placed within the front gallery. Underlying the modem concreteslab were four strata. A lOto 11 cm thick brick rubble and mortar floor, edged with a row of bricks, wasuncovered directly underneath the slab. This rubble floor rested on a 7 to 8 cm thick clay fill deposit, whichcapped a 2 cm thick lens of brick fragments. The lens rested on consolidated undisturbed natural leveeclay. Very few artifacts were recovered from the unit, most of which were consistent with either eighteenthor nineteenth century dates of deposition. A second unit, measuring I x 2 m, was placed 12 m behind thehouse. Remnants of a brick-bordered walkway filled with brick and shell fragments also were uncovered.Eighteenth and nineteenth century materials were recovered from the walkway, Including French falence,Iberian jar fragments, and transfer printed earthenware. Finally, limited probing around the site located fourbrick piers at 75 m from the rear gallery, and a concentration of bricks at 90 m from the rear gallery. Basedon an historic reference to a building at Elmwood Plantation in 1768, and the dearth of evidence of a priorstructure at the big house, Shenkel (1974) concluded that the plantation house was erected prior to thatdate. Additional excavations were recommended to provide more complete information about the house,the plantation, and eighteenth century plantation life.

Additional testing at Elmwood Plantation was undertaken by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates,Inc., in 1982 (Goodwin et al. 1983). Extensive research was performed documenting the historicdevelopment of the plantation. Archeological testing included a proton magnetometer survey and excavationof ten units and nine backhoe trenches. Based on the collected data, it appears that the plantation housewas built ca. 1810, considerably later than previously thought. Archeological deposits exhibited a highdegree of archeological Integrity. Analyses of recovered materials provided information about nineteenthcentury living conditions on the plantation, and the distribution of several plantation activity areas. The sitewas characterized as a significant cultural resource because of its documented research potential regardingantebellum plantation life in southeastern Louisiana (Goodwin et al. 1983).

In 1985 and 1986, R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (Goodwin et al. 1986) surveyed aseries of planned U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, levee construction items locatedalong the west bank of the Mississippi River, between Waggaman and Gretna, Louisiana. Project arearemains associated with Avondale Plantation (16JE143) and Magnolia Lane (16JE156) were identified andtested during survey. The project area portions of these sites were tested through both shovel testing andunit excavation. Based on collected data, those portions of the sites which fell within planned constructioneasements exhibited considerable modem disturbance, and lacked substantive archeological integrity.Eighteen standing structures also were recorded and evaluated during survey; none possessed the qualitiesof significance, as defined by the National Register of Historic Places criteria of significance (36 CFR 60.4[a-dQ). No additional archeological testing of the project areas was recommended.

In 1988, R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (Goodwin et al. 1990) surveyed the plannedGretna Phase II Levee Enlargement project for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. Thesurvey area extended along the west bank of the Mississippi River from Marrero, Louisiana, downriver to theJefferson - Orleans Parish line. One site, 16JE207, was recorded upriver from the Harvey Canal. This site

36

contained a small, linear brick structure which may have been associated with a nineteenth century drainage,and an apparent brick rubble road. Historic documentation suggested that the site was associated withBobb's Brickyard (1850s - 1860s), and with the gardens and plantation structures of N. N. Destrehan (1820s- 1840s). Additional testing was recommended to record the brick structure, and to evaluate thearcheological significance of the site.

Two additional studies were conducted In the vicinity of the project reach. Rivet (1977) surveyeda railroad Interchange at Shrewsbury Road prior to track removal and Interchange relocation, i.e.,approximately 1.5 km (0.95 rni) north of the current project area. Finally, Beavers (1983) examinednumerous small parcels between 1980 and 1983 during an extended feasibility study of 13 proposedJefferson Parish sewerage treatment facilities. These parcels were scattered throughout the northern portionof Jefferson Parish, and Included parcels near Avondale, Bridge City, and Westwego, Louisiana. Nosubstantive archeological deposits were located during either of these studies.

Previously Recorded Archeological Sites and National Register Properties near the Project Area

Six previously recorded archeological sites are located on the Mississippi River natural levee nearthe project area (Table 1). Four of these sites are associated with nineteenth and early twentieth centuryplantations, Including Elmwood Plantation (16JE138), Seven Oaks Plantation (16JE139), Avondale Plantation(16JE143), and Magnolia Lane (16JE156). The archeological deposits associated with Seven OaksPlantation have been damaged extensively by modem construction, including construction of a tank farm;the site does not represent a significant cultural resource. As discussed above, testing at ElmwoodPlantation demonstrated that the site does represent a potentially significant cultural resource. While testedless extensively than Elmwood, Avondale Plantation may contain Important In situ cultural deposits. Bothof these sites apoear to possess the qualities of significance as defined by the National Register of HistoricPlaces criteria (36 Ci:R 60.4 [a-dJ). Magnolia Lane is listed on the National Register. While thosearcheological resources located near the levee do not possess the qualities of significance as defined byNational Register of Historic Places criteria (Goodwin et al. 1986), those resources located near theplantation house have not been evaluated.

Two additional sites are located in the vicinity of the project area. Site 16JE207 contains anapparent brick drainage feature and possible remains of an antebellum brickyard and plantation. AudubonZoo (1 6OR96) contains a layer of brick and coal, mixed with early to mid nineteenth century artifacts, whichwas observed within a construction trench. Both sites represent potentially significant cultural resources andhave been recommended for additional testing.

Several properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located with 1.6 km (1 ml)of the project area. Within Odeans Parish, the Carrollton Historic District encompasses much of thepostbellum and early twentieth century housing within Carrollton; it was listed on November 2, 1987.Individual structures in Carrollton which are listed Include the 1890s Park View Guest House (listedNovember 5, 1982), and the 1882 Greenville Hall, Dominican College (listed August 29, 1977).

Camp Parapet Powder Magazine (listed May 24, 1977) lies immediately north of the project area inJefferson, Louisiana. The original fortification was built in 1861 by Confederate forces, who named it FortSmith and, subsequently, Fort Morgan. Following its 1862 capture by Federal troops, its name was changedto Camp Parapet; it remained in Federal control throughout the duration of the Civil War. Only the powdermagazine has survived. Finally, the previously discussed Magnolia Lane Plantation Includes the earlynineteenth century big house and associated dependencies: a kitchen, two sheds, five cabins, a chickencoup, greenhouses, and a renovated barn. The plantation was listed on the National Register on February13, 1986.

37

c -L. M C0LL. -

4)0 0)

CD C

z oP) -

C0 cc 0~_ 0

000

00

0C.

to Z- 0D 0 Q04- C .CCD

70 .. _o

CC

OL~ 5 i

u0a o"4)Q > tQ I

E(0 - ,4

o -0

0 78 tj

to -

38

CHAPTER VI

METHODS

Field Methods

In accordance with the Scope of Services (Appendix II), two portions of the project reach wereexamined for cultural resources through a combination of pedestrian survey and systematic auger testing.This survey was designed to locate, identify, and assess all cultural resources situated within the survey area.The first segment Includes the area between River Miles 105.2 and 104.7-L, and incorporates the planned1992 extension of the Carrollton Bend Revetment. Because of the anticipated depth of the modem alluvialdeposits, fieldwork included the systematic excavation of 73 auger tests In the 1,075 m (3,526 ft) long surveyarea (Figures 1 and 5). A baseline, oriented at 1640, was established at the upriver end of the segment.Survey transects, numbered 1 through 15, were oriented at 20 m intervals along the baseline. Transect Iwas placed near the levee toe, while Transect 15 was positioned approximately 10 m north of the MississippiRiver. The survey transects were oriented at a 740 angle and extended approximately parallel to the levee.Auger tests were excavated at 50 m intervals along each transect; auger tests along adjacent transects wereoffset to maximize survey coverage (Figure 5). The entire area was traversed on foot, and the bankline andother exposed surfaces were examined for evidence of cultural resources.

A second component of this survey included the excavation of six auger tests in the 610 m (2,000ft) segment of the project area located upriver from the survey baseline, I.e., between River Miles 105.7 and105.2-L This area corresponds to a potential future extension of the Carrollton Bend Revetment easement(Figure 1). The auger tests were designed to provide overview data concerning the geomorphologicaldevelopment of the area, and the potential for the upriver area to contain substantive archeological deposits.They were placed adjacent to three dirt roads that extend from the levee towards the river in the survey area.Three irregular survey transects, numbered 16 through 18, were placed along these roads, and two augertests were placed along each transect. All were located upriver from an extensive area of fill associated withthe construction of a Jefferson Parish water intake station and its associated water pipes (Figure 5).

Auger tests measured either 2½ or 4 in in diameter and were excavated to a depth of approximately2 m below ground surface. The stratigraphic soil profile of each auger test was characterized utilizingMunsell Soil Color Charts and a textural triangle. In addition, the soils were examined for evidence ofcultural materials and related deposits. A total of 13 auger tests were described extensively by the staffgeomorphologist. These included six auger tests located along the baseline between the levee and the river,six auger tests placed upriver from the baseline, and a final auger test placed near the downriver end of thesurvey area and adjacent to the observed brick piers (Figure 5). These 13 auger tests are illustrated inAppendix I.

The final component of the field investigations consisted of limited archeological testing around aseries of brick piers that were observed near the downriver end of the archeological survey area, i.e., at theupriver end of the existing Carrollton Bend revetment. Approximately 14 brick piers were observed in theovergrown weeds located adjacent to the cut grass situated near the riverside toe of the levee (Figure 5).These brick piers formed an irregular alignment that was oriented approximately parallel to the levee. Duringthe Initial auger testing of the survey segment, one auger test (Transect 2, Auger Test 18) was placedadjacent to these piers; an additional seven auger tests subsequently were excavated throughout the area.In addition, a 1 x 2 m excavation unit was placed near the piers to provide additional information concerningthe deposition and archeological integrity of the associated deposits. Unit datum was established at 15 cmabove ground surface near the southwest comer of the unit. The unit was excavated following naturalstratigraphic layers; 10 cm levels were used to maintain control within strata. Unit excavation terminated

39

4R0T >TR 8

Ld > -1 HUEY P-1ONG F:

PROJCTE UPSTREA 1

CARROLFILL REE0N

005

WTRPMETERS

Figure~TAIO 5 lno h roetaeso\n adcp eaue n xaatdagrtss

LOCATION OFDIRT ROAD / ACCESS ROAD ,'BRICK PIERS

L :3-/.'--------•LEVEE ,!

+ +

+ +

SEARTEN aBRM E

FILL UPRIVER END OF'/HE EXISTiNG>CARROLLTON

ST NREVETMENTNUEYP. LNG FEET(M-1O4.7-L)!LL

z• COMUICTONTOE

44

at 110 cm below datum (cmbd), at which point large quantities of articulated brick, large concrete chunks,and compact rubble impeded further excavation. An auger test was excavated in the base of the unit to adepth of 200 cmbd. Stratigraphic soil profiles were drawn for three walls, and soils were described utilizingMunsell Soil Color Charts and a textural triangle. The unit was photographed prior to completing the survey,and then backfilled. Finally, sn electronic distance meter (EDM) was used to map the locations of the brickpiers and the excavation unit, and to tie them to the existing levee.

All recovered materials were washed and sorted by material category, and encoded into acomputerized site catalog to allow for further manipulation of the data. The computerized site catalog wasorganized by category, functional group, type, and subtype. The first level, category, represented the artifactmaterial type and was based on the format defined by the Louisiana Division of Archaeology. The secondlevel, functional group, was based on classifications established by South (1977). The third and fourth levels,type and subtype, were defined by diagnostic attributes. Historic artifact analysis was aided by Miller(personal communication 1988), Nelson (1968), and South (1977). All chronological data provided forrecovered diagnostic artifacts refer to the use popularity date of the artifact.

41

CHAPTER VII

RESULTS OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

Introduction

Field investigations within the Carrolliton Bend Revetment project area consisted of three interrelatedcomponents. The downriver 1,075 m (3,526 ft) of the survey area was tested utilizing pedestrianreconnaissance and the systematic excavation of 73 auger tests. The upriver 610 m (2,000 it) long segmentwas examined through pedestrian reconnaissance and the excavation of six judgmentally placed auger tests.Finally, one cultural resource location, a series of brick piers, was tested through excavation of sevenadditional auger tests and one I x 2 m unit. A total of 86 auger tests and one 1 x 2 m excavation unit wereplaced within the 70 ac survey area. Results of the field investigations are discussed below.

Pedestrian Reconnaissance

Most of the area has been damaged extensively by modern activities. At the upriver (western) endof the project area, three large, water-filled borrow pits cover much of the batture. A cleared natural gaspipeline right-of-way lies between two of these borrow pits. The remainder of the area, I.e., from thenorthern woodline to approximately 75 to 100 m (246 to 328 it) north of the Mississippi River, can becharacterized as low, frequently inundated terrain. There are three dirt roads in the survey area that extendfrom the levee towards the Mississippi River; they are built on 0.7 to 1.2 m (2.3 to 4 it) of fill to raise themabove the surrounding terrain (Figure 5). Modern debris, including several large sewer pipe segments, isscattered throughout the woods and near the roads. A low sandy ridge and a gradually sloping banklineare located adjacent to the Mississippi River; this ridge apparently represents a small modern natural levee.

An extensive area of modern fill lies a short distance west of the survey baseline. The fill isapproximately 1 to 1.5 m (3.3 to 4.9 it) thick; it consists primarily of dirt, concrete, asphalt, and shell. TheUSGS topographic quadrangle (Figure 1) and modern aerial photographs illustrate that this material is beingused to fill an existing borrow pit. Continued filling is resulting in a gradual expansion of this area. Withinthe western half of this filled area, a Jefferson Parish water intake pumping station, the associated pipes, andan adjacent raised concrete road extend from the levee south to the Mississippi River (Figure 5).

Several large, water-filled borrow pits also are found east of the survey baseline (Figure 5). A 1 to1.5 m (3.3 to 4.9 ft) high earthen berm extends between the two larger borrow pits. A 50 m (164 ft) longdirt road extends from near the levee to a small borrow pit. The area surrounding the road is covered withmodem debris, Including piled and scattered chunks of concrete; some of these are buried. For example,the excavation of Transect 3, Auger Test 6 was impeded by buried concrete at 48 cm below ground surface(cmbs).

South of the borrow pits, the Huey P. Long Fleet Company occupies a 350 m (1,148 It) long, 80 m(262 it) wide area along the Mississippi River. The area contains approximately 1.5 to 2 m (4.9 to 6.6 it) ofmodern fill. This fill contains a considerable amount of modem refuse, e.g., architectural debris andconcrete. The company continues to expand its yard by dumping fill throughout the area. An access roadbuilt on 2 m (6.6 ft) of fill connects the yard to the levee. Numerous barges align the Mississippi Riverbankline In front of, and upriver from, the company yard. Finally, the upriver end of the existing CarrolltonBend Revetment terminates near the downriver end of the project area (Figure 5). In that area, the banklineIs covered with riprap and debris, while the adjacent woods contain modern alluvial deposits.

42

Auger Testing Results

During the initial survey of the project area, 73 auger tests were excavated within the downriver1,075 m (3,526 ft) that extend east from the baseline; an additional six auger tests were excavated in the610 m (2,000 ft) long area located upriver from the survey baseline (Figure 5). These auger tests exhibiteda variety of stratigraphic profiles. In general, those auger tests placed within the northern half of the surveyarea contained various clays overlying Ioams and sands. Transect 4, Auger Test 1 exhibited a typical augertest profile for those auger tests located near the levee. The auger test contained 8 strata (Figure 6).Stratum I consisted of a 14 cm thick deposit of 1 OYR 3/2 very dark grayish brown silty clay loam; below thiswas a 16 cm thick layer of 1OYR 4/2 dark grayish brown silty clay (Stratum II). Between 30 and 50 cmbelow ground surface, a layer of 1OYR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty clay was encountered (Stratum Ill).Stratum IV contained of a 30 cm layer of IOYR 4/2 dark grayish brown silty clay mottled with IOYR 5/1 graysilty clay. Stratum V formed a 16 cm thick deposit of IOYR 4/1 silty clay mottled with IOYR 4/4 darkyellowish brown silty clay. This rested on a 4 cm thick lens of 5Y 5/1 gray fine grained, very well sortedsand. Stratum Vii consisted of a 45 cm thick deposit of 1OYR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam with 1OYR5/1 gray sift loam mottles and occasional thin bands of sand. The final excavated stratum, Stratum VIII,extended from 145 to 200 cm below ground surface. This stratum consisted of interlaminated andinterbedded IOYR 5/1 gray, IOYR 4/4 dark yellowish brown, and IOYR 4/1 dark gray silt loam and sandyloam, with occasional 1 to 3 cm thick bands of clay and very well sorted, very fine grained sand. Insummary, the upper 96 cm of this auger test is characterized by various silty clays and alluvial deposits,which generally form in a near slack water environment. The lower 104 cm was dominated by silt loams,sandy larns, and sands. No cultural deposits were observed within this auger test.

Auger tests placed within 100 m (328 ft) of the Mississippi River generally contained silt, loam, andsand, apparently reflecting near-river natural levee deposition. Transect 12, Auger Test 1 was placedapproximately 160 m (525 ft) south of Transect 4, Auger Test 1, and 70 m (230 ft) north of the MississippiRiver (Figure 5). This auger test contained seven strata (Figure 7). Stratum I formed an 8 cm thick depositof 1OYR 4/1 dark gray clayey silt with I OYR 4/4 dark yellowish brown clayey silt mottles, and organic debris.The underlying Stratum II, which extended to a depth of 65 cm below ground surface, consisted of 1OYR4/1 dark gray to IOYR 4/4 dark yellowish brown clayey silt with zones of laminated silty clay and silt loam,and silt laminae. This rested on a 21 cm thick Stratum IlI, a 1OYR 4/2 dark grayish brown silt loam with1OYR 4/4 to 1OYR 4/6 dark yellowish brown silt loam mottles. Between 86 and 125 cm below groundsurface, the auger test contained 1 OYR 4/2 dark grayish brown loamy sand with I OYR 3/2 very dark grayishbrown loamy sand and IOYR 4/4 dark yellowish brown loamy sand mottles; deteriorated wood fragmentswere observed throughout the stratum. Stratum V extended from 125 to 162 cm below ground surface; itcontained 1OYR 3/2 very dark grayish brown sand with occasional 1 - 2 cm thick bands of 1OYR 3/1 verydark gray silty clay to clayey silt. This rested on a 24 cm thick deposit of 5Y 4/1 dark gray silty clay, whichcontained numerous deteriorated wood fragments. Stratum VII, the basal stratum, extended from 186 to200 cm below ground surface; it consisted of 1OYR 3/1 very dark gray sandy loam. While the upper 65 cmof the auger test was characterized by clayey silt deposits, the remainder consisted primarily of various siltfoams, sandy boams, and sands. As with Transect 4, Auger Test 1, the stratigraphically higher soils exhibiteda finer texture than the lower soils. No cultural deposits or materials were observed within Transect 12,Auger Test 1. Ukewise, no evidence of non-modem cultural deposits was observed in the other excavatedauger tests.

As discussed in Chapter II, the auger tests demonstrate that the project area Is covered byconsiderable amounts of modem alluvial deposits. The banded and interbedded alluvial deposits observedwithin most of the auger tests reflect the annual flooding of the batture. A number of auger tests producedmodem materials between 30 and 110 cm below ground surface. For example, Auger Test 2 producedmodern monofilament netting from a depth of 125 cm below surface, and Auger Test 6 yielded 1 piece ofunidentified bottle glass from a depth of 40 to 48 cm below surface (Table 2).

43

TR. 4 AT 1

0

10YR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTYCLAY LOAM

20 II lOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAY

40- lOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN SILTYCLAY

60-YIOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAYMOTTLED WITH 1OYR 5/1 GRAY SILTY CLAY

80-mS4y / IOYR 4/1 DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY MOTTLED

V' WITH IOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWNSILTY CLAY

z,, 10 5Y 5/1 GRAY VERY FINE, WELL-SORTED SAND

u..J100

120- 10YR4/4DARKYELLOWISH BROWN SILT LOAMVII WITH 10YR 5/1 GRAY THIN SAND SEAMS

140 --

160 ..

1OYR 5/1 GRAY SILT LOAM INTERLAMINATEDAND INTERBEDDED WITH 1OYR 5/1 GRAY

Vl SAND LOAM WITH OCCASIONAL SEAMS OF1OYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN VERY

180 Z- FINE, WELL-SORTED SAND AND IOYR 4/1 DARKGRAY CLAY

200-

Figure 6. Stratigraphic soil profile of Transect 4, Auger Test 1.

44

TR. 12 AT I

0 • 10YR 4/1 DARK GRAY CLAYEY SILT MOTTLEDWITH 10YR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN

CLAYEY SILT WITH ORGANIC MATTER

20-J

10YR 4/1 DARK GRAY CLAYEY SILT LAMINATED

WITH 10YR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN40 BROWN SILT LOAM WITH 10YR 4/4 DARK

YELLOWISH BROWN SILT LAMINAE.

,. IOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAM

i0m MOTTLED WITH 10YR 4/4 DARK YELLOISH: -- - BROWN SILT LOAM AND 10YR 4/6 DARK

S..YELLOWISH BROWN SILT LOAM

12---4 - -:

c-

z - 10YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN LOAMY SAND- 3MOTTLED WITH 1YR3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH

z=

BROWN LOAMY SAND AND 10YR 4/4 DARK541AYELLOWISH BROWN LOAMY SAND WITH

-- 0-ORGANIC MATTER120-

140 -- IOYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDiuh ol pr TBANDED WITH 1-2CM THICK LAYERS OF 10YR

3/1 VERYDARKGRAYCLAYEYSILT

160

V1 5Y 4/1 DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY WITH ORGANICMATTER

] VII, 10YR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SANDY LOAM

Figure 7. Stratlgraphic soil profile of Transect 12, Auger Test 1.

45

Table 2. Inventory from Cultural Resource Survey of Carrollton Bend Revetment, Mississippi River M-105,7to 101.7-L

FS LOCATION ARTIFACT TYPE DESCRIPTION CT COMMENTS

003 Iu ger Test 01, 110 cmbs Miscellaneous Architectural Tar 2004 AuJger Test 05, 110 cmbs AAchitectural Stone Brick Fragmont(s) I

004 Auger Test 05. 110 cmbs M Architectural Sto ercFragmentnt 2

LataIm 01, Trans"ec 02

002 1 Auger Test 18 Roofing Materials Roofing Shingle. tar I@ 890 m, 150 cmbs paper I

Tran, ct 0, Aue Test 06=005 @ 275 m, 40 - 48 cmbs Unidentified Bottle Glass Colorless Fragment(s) I Probably modernTransect 16, Aug Tim 02

001 125cmbs Modm monofilament IU n ht 01 . ....012 Surface Collection Unidentified Metal Shet Mal

UM 01. Sratum I .

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Architecture (Ceramics, Sewage/Drainage pipe 1 Fragmentcmbd Historic)

006 Level 01. 11.5 - 21.5 Ironstone White Undecorated 2cmbd she'd(s)

006 Level 01. 11.5 - 21.5 Roofing Materials Slate, Roofingcmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Roofing Materials Asbestos Shingle(s) 2cmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Faunal (Nonhuman) Unidentified Bone(s) 1 Large mammal -

cmbd fragment

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Faunal (Nonhuman) Identified Tooth/Teeth 1 Large rodent incisorcmnbd (poss. nutria/beaver)

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Furniture Unoleum Fragment(s) 1cmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Window Glass fragment(s) Colorless Fragment(s) Icmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Blown-in-Mold Glass Colorless Fragment(s) 2cmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Blown-in-Mold Glass Amber Fragment(s) 1 Moderncrnbd _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Machine-Made Up (Glass) Colorless Fragment(s) I Moderncmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Machine Made Up (Glass) Amber Fragment(s) 1 Modern beer bottlecmbd fragment

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Machine Made Base Light Green 1cmbd (Glass) Fragment(s)

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Machine-Made Base Colorless Fragment(s) 1cmbd (Glass)

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Matted Glass Dark Green Fragment(s)cmbd

46

Table 2, continued

FSj LOCATION ARTIFACT TYPE j DESCRIPTION JCT j COMMENTS

006 Level 01. 11. 5-21.5 Molded-Technique- Colorless Fragment(s) I Possible toy partcmbd Unknown (Glass)______

006 Level 01, 115 5-21.5 Unidentified Bottle Glass Colorless Fragment(s) 1cmbd

006 Level 01 , 11.1 21.5 Wire Common Nail(s) 1 6.0 - 6.5 inches longcmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 -21.5 Wire Common Nail(s) 1 Nail fragmentcmbd _ _ _ _ _

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Furniture Metal Bed Spring(s) 2cmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 -21.5 Unidentitieo Metal Sheet Metal 2cmbd

006 Level 01. 11.5 -21,5 Projectile Parts Centerfire Cartridge .25 1 'Western .25 ACP'cmbd

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21 .5 Miscellaneous Hardware Iron Wire (not Barbed 1cmbd Wife)

006 Level 01, 11.5 - 21.5 Metal Stable htems Horseshoe(s) 1cmbd__ _ _ _

007 Level 02, 21.5 -27 embd Ironstone Colored Glaze sherd(s) 1

007 Level 02, 21.5 - 27 cmbd Miscellaneous Architectural Tar 2

007 Level 02, 21.5 -27 cmbd Ro, ting Materials Roofing Shingle, tar 2_________________ ___________________paper __________

007 Level 02, 21.5 - 27 cmbd Melted Glass Colorless Fragment(s) 1 _________

007 Level 02, 21.5 - 27 cmbd Unidentified Bottle Glass Amber Fragment(s) 1 Modern

007 Level 02, 21.5 - 27 cmbd Lamp Glass Colorless Fragment(s) 1

007 Level 02, 21.5 -27 cmbd Wire Common Nail(s) L

007 Level 02, 21.5 - 27 cmbd Unidentified Metal Metal Object(s) 4 Rust

007 Level 02, 21.5 - 27 cmbd Other Miscellaneous Stone Coal Slag 1

007 Level 02, 21.5 - 27 cmbd Personal Synthetic Items Miscellaneous 1 Plastic hair curler pin

Unit 01, Swtuetm UI________ ______________

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Ar chitecture (Ceramics, ICeramic Tile (fireplace 2__________________Historic) or bathroom) ____________

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Ironstone Colored Glaze sherd (s) 1

1008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Redware Unglazed sherd(s) 1

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Miscellaneous Architectural Tar 1

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Miscellaneous Architectural Other (Construction 1 Fired clay block_____________________ _______________________Materials) ____________

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Roofing Materials Asbestos Shingle(s) 1

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Window Glass fragment(s) Aqua Fragment(s) 1

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Blown-in-Mold Glass Colorless Fragment(s) I ".V..

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Blown-In-Mold Glass Colorless Fragment(s) I _________

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Machine-Made Base Colorless Fragment(s) 1 Partial embossment,(Glass) -...LAW .. /SALE OR RE-

47

Table 2, continued

FSLOCATION ARTIFACT TYPE DESCRIPTION CT COMMENTS___o_ o I ____c_______

008 Level 01. 27 - 38 cmbd Melted Glass Colorless Fragment(s) 1

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Wire Common Nail(s) 3 Nail fragments

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Unidentified Metal Metal Object(s) I Rust

008 Level 01, 27 - 38 cmbd Projectile Parts Centerfire Cartridge .25 1 "Western[.25 ACP]"

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Architecture (Ceramics, Ceramic Tile (fireplace 2Historic) or bathroom)

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Architecture (Ceramics, Ceramic Fuxture(s) 2Historic) Plumbing

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Ironstone White Undecorated Isherd(s)

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Whiteware Plain sherd(s) 1

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Miscellaneous Architectural Mortar 1

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Rooting Materials Roofing Shingle, tar 2paper

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Roofing Materials Asbestos Shingle(s) 1

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Flora (Furniture) Unoleum Fragment(s) 1

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Blown-in-Mold Glass Colorless Fragment(s) 1 "Pepsi Col...'

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Machine-Made Up (Glass) Dark Green Fragment(s) 1 Wire/champagne

009 Level 02, 38- 48 cmbd Machine-Made Up (Glass) Colorless Fragment(s) 1

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Machine-Made Up (Glass) Colorless Fragment(s) 1 Milk bottle lip

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Machine-Made Up (Glass) Colorless Fragment(s) 1 Jar threads

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Melted Glass Green Fragment(s) 1 Melt jar lid

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Unidentified Bottle Glass Dark Green Fragment(s) 1 Wire/champagne

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Unidentified Bottle Glass Ught Green 1 Coke bottle fragmentFragment(s)

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Wire Common Nail(s) 3 Nail fragments

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Unidentified Metal Metal Object(s) 2 Rust fragments

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Miscellaneous Hardware Battery Part(s) 1 VD cell battery

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Miscellaneous Hardware Iron Wire (not Barbed 1 WireWire)

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Metal Toys Jack(s) 1

009 Level 02, 38 - 48 cmbd Miscellaneous Activities Unidentified Bakelite 1 ..-1 M..25..."Hardware Object(s)

011 Level 03, 48.5 - 54 cmbd Architecture (Ceramics, Ceramic fixture(s), 1Historic) Plumbing

011 Level 03, 48.5 - 54 cmbd Window Glass fragment(s) Colorless Fragment(s) 1

011 Level 03, 48.5 - 54 cmbd Machine-Made Base Colorless Fragment(s)(Glass)

011 Level 03, 48.5 - 54 cmbd Unidentified Metal Unidentified Nail(s) 1

0i1 Level 03, 48.5 - 54 cmbd Unidentified Metal Unidentified Iron 5Object(s)

48

Table 2, continued

FS[ LOCATION j ARTIFACT TYPE DESCRIPTION CT COMMENTS

017 Level 01, 90 - 105 embd Wire Common Nail(s) __________ 7 Fragment

017 Level 01, 90 - 105 cmbd Wire Common Nail(s) 4 Tar paper nail________________ __________________ _______________fragments

017 Level 01, 90 - 105 cmbd Machine-Cut Nail(s) 1 2.5 - 3.0 inches long

017 Level 01, 90 - 105 cmbd Machine-Cut Nail(s) I Fragment

017 Level 01, 90 - 105 cmbd Construction Hardware Flvet(s) 1 Brass

017 Level 01, 90 - 105 cmbd Other Miscellaneous Stone CoalI

so=

Location 1

One archeological resource was located during pedestrian survey and auger testing of the projectarea. This resource, designated Location 1, consisted of a series of brick piers that formed an irregularalignment between the levee and the river In the vicinity of Transect 2, Auger Test 18. Fourteen of thesepiers were observed and recorded across the surface of a 40 m (131 ft) long area (Figure 8). These pierswere not in situ, and were found scattered throughout the area In an irregular manner; a number of piersrested on their side or were inverted. While five of the eight auger tests placed near the brick piers exhibitedno evidence of cultural deposits, three produced buried modern materials. Transect 2, Auger Test 18produced a piece of tar paper roofing material at 150 cm below ground surface. Location 1, Auger Test 1contained chunks of tar-like material at approximately 110 cm, while Location 1, Auger Test 5 yielded 2pieces of mortar and 1 brick fragment also from a depth of 110 cm below surface (Table 2). These materialsrested on an impenetrable surface of brick and concrete. Based on the observed morphology of the brickpiers, and the presence of buried modern materials, it appeared that the brick piers and associated depositsconsisted of modem fill used to inhibit riverine cutting.

One 1 x 2 m excavation unit, Unit 1, was placed along the northern side of the brick pier scatter.This unit was excavated to obtain additional data about the brick piers (Figure 8). The unit was oriented ata 740 angle, and was aligned with the previously traversed survey transects. A total of seven strata wereexcavated within this 1 m deep unit; an additional three strata were recorded within an auger test placedin the base of the unit (Figure 9). The 10 to 20 cm thick Stratum I consisted of 1 0YR 5/2 grayish brown siltmixed with 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silt. Numernus modern materials were observed in the stratum,however, only a representative sample of the large quality of modern materials was collected. Observedmaterials included modem bottle glass, plastic, styrofoam, wire screening, burlap rope, whiteware, mortar,and brick fragments. Recovered materials included 1 large mammal bone fragment, 1 large rodent tooth(e.g., nutria or beaver), 2 pieces of white, undecorated ironstone (post 1845) (Miller, personal communication1988), and 1 colored glazed ironstone fragment, 2 asbestos shingles, 1 roofing slate fragment, I roofing tarpaper fragment, and I piece of tar (Table 2). Also collected were 1 piece of linoleum, 1 plastic hair curlerpin, 1 piece of coal slag, 2 metal bed springs, 2 pieces of sheet metal, 1 metal horseshoe, 1 .25 centerfirecartridge casing, 1 iron wire fragment, 4 pieces of rusted metal, and 3 wire nails (post 1890) (Nelson 1968).Recovered glass included 1 window glass fragment, 2 blown-in-mold glass fragments, 4 pieces of machine-made bottle glass, including 2 modem fragments, I possible glass toy part, 2 pieces of melted glass, 1 lampglass fragment, and 2 pieces of unidentified glass (Table 2). In addition, the top of a randomly positionedarticulated brick segment (brick pier ?) was uncovered in the southeast corner of the unit.

The 23 to 38 cm thick Stratum 11 (22 to 55 cmbd) consisted of 10YR 3/3 dark brown loam. Thearticulated brick observed in the southeast corner of the unit rested on a second articulated brick segment,which extended to the base of the stratum. Moderate quantities of cultural materials were located within thestratum. The majority of the material was observed and/or recovered from the southeast comer of the unit,near the articulated brick. These modern and potential historic materials included whiteware, modem andnon-diagnostic bottle glass, window glass, wire nails, plastic, wire screening, aluminum foil, burned glass,brick, and concretb. Recovered materials included 1 unglazed redware fragment, 2 pieces of ironstone, Iplain whiteware sherd (1820 - 1900+) (South 1977), 4 ceramic tile fragments, 3 ceramic plumbing fixtureparts, 1 day architectural block fragment, 2 asbestos shingles, 1 mortar fragment, 2 pieces of roofing tarpaper, 1 piece of tar, 1 linoleum fragment, and 1 miscellaneous bakelite hardware object (Table 2). Metalartifacts Included 6 wire nails, 1 unidentified nail, 1 .25 centerfire cartridge casing, 1 modem battery part,1 toy jack, 1 piece of wire, and 8 unidentifiable metal fragments. Several pieces of glass were recoveredincluding 2 window glass fragments, 3 pieces of blown-in-mold glass, 5 machine-made glass fragments, 2melted glass fragments, and 2 pieces of unidentified bottle glass (Table 2).

51

TOE OF LEVEE

A.T. 6 AT. 4 WEEDLINE•

AT. 3AT. 2

+ AUGER TEST

JY BRICK PIERS

S" TREELINE

BANKLINE

RIPRAP

0 10

METERS

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Figure 8. Plan of observed brick piers and adjacent auger tests at Location 1.

52

L.J

I SN

4.l

6 3

The 11 to 25 cm thick Stratum III extended from 55 to 75 cmbd. It contained I OYR 5/2 grayishbrown silt loam mixed with 1OYR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam. The articulated brick located in thesoutheast comer of the unit rested on the lower half of this stratum (Figure 9). Two additional articulatedbrick segments were uncovered within the stratum. These included a segment in the northwest comer ofthe unit that rested on its side with the bricks In a vertical position (Figure 9). The second segment, whichextended out of the northern wall of the unit, also rested on its side, with the bricks on edge; the portionof the pier located in the unit measured apprLcximately 105 cm (41 In) long, and 30 to 60 cm (12 to 24 in)wide. Only a few artifacts were located within this stratum. These Included 6 sheet metal fragments, 1 pieceeach of lamp glass and light bulb glass, 1 piece of blown-in-mold glass, and 1 unidentified glass fragment(Table 2). Observed materials included more bottle glass, Iron fragments, a burlap feed bag, brick, shell,and mortar.

Stratum IV measured 7 to 15 cm thick, and extended from 75 to 82 cmbd (Figure 9). The stratumcontained 1OYR 4/2 dark grayish brown loam mottled with 2.5YR 3/6 dark red silt loam. The articulatedbrick segments observed within Stratum III continued through Stratum IV; in addition, portions of otherarticulated brick and large concrete chunks were uncovered. Materials recovered from within the stratumincluded 1 unglazed buff-bodied earthenware sherd, 1 machine-made modem amber beer bottle fragment,2 pieces of modern glass, 2 pieces of frosted light bulb glass, 7 iron can fragments, 1 piece of roofing tarpaper, 1 piece of cellophane, and I piece of rubber (Table 2). Brick fragments also were observed. StratumV formed an isolated deposit, up to 12 cm thick, which was confined to the south-central and southwesternportion of the unit; it was separated from the remainder of the unit by brick and concrete. The stratumcontained I OYR 5/2 grayish brown silt loam mixed with 1 OYR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam (Figure 9).Artifact density was very low; only 1 apparent modern blown-in-mold bottle glass fragment was recoveredfrom this stratum (Table 2).

Stratum VI was confined to the eastern half of the unit; it was separated from the remainder of theunit by two large articulated brick segments. This stratum measured up to 20 cm in thickness and consistedof 1OYR 3/2 dark grayish brown clay loam mixed with 1OYR 3/1 very dark gray silt loam and 7.5YR 4/4 darkbrown silt loam. In the southeast corner of the unit, this stratum rested on a consolidated deposit of brick,concrete, and asphalt rubble (Figure 9). Recovered materials included 2 pieces of asphalt, 2 pieces of tar,2 roofing slate fragments, 7 pieces of roofing tar paper, 1 brass rivet, I piece of coal, 2 machine-cut nails(1815 - 1890) (Nelson 1968), 24 wire nails, 2 window glass fragments, 2 pieces of blown-in-mold glass, and5 unidentified glass fragments (Table 2). Brick fragments, shell, and mortar also were observed within thestratum.

The 5 to 25 cm thick basal stratum, Stratum VII, was excavated to a depth of 110 cmbd. Thisstratum contained IOYR 4/2 dark grayish brown silty clay loam mixed with 7.5YR 4/6 strong brown silt loam.No cultural material was recovered from Stratum VII. However, considerable articulated brick, concretechunks, and consolidated brick, concrete, and asphalt surrounded the Stratum VII soils. Unit excavationterminated at the base of Stratum VII, Level 2, because the floor of the unit was covered with brick, concrete,and asphalt, which severely impeded excavation efforts.

An auger test was placed in the east-central portion of the unit, approximately 50 cm west of theeastern wall of the unit. This auger test extended from 110 to 200 cmbd. Stratum VII soils extended to adepth of 140 cmbd. The underlying 16 cm thick Stratum VIII contained 2.5Y 4/0 dark gray clay loammottled with lOYR 5/6 yellowish brown clay loam. This rested on Stratum IX, which extended from 156 to170 cmbd. Stratum IX contained 2.5Y 5/0 gray silt loam mottled with 1OYR 5/6 yellowish brown silt loam;the water table was encountered at 160 cmbd. The basal stratum of this auger test, Stratum X, wasencountered between 170 and 200 cmbd. It consisted of 2.5Y 5/0 gray clay loam. No cultural materialswere recovered from Strata VIII through X; this suggests that the cultural deposits terminated at the baseof Stratum VII, i.e., at 140 cmbd.

54

Data collected from Unit 1 indicate that Location 1 lacks archeological integrity and substantiveresearch potential. While a number of articulated brick segments and large concrete chunks were locatedthroughout the unit, these construction-related materials were not in situ. A variety of modern (post-1 945)materials were observed and collected from throughout the unit; while some of the artifacts may date fromthe early twentieth century, the assemblage suggests that the deposits within Location 1 were formed afterWorld War II. The brick piers lie approximately 20 m north of the upriver end of the Carroilton BendRevetment (Figures 5 and 8). They do not correspond with the historic location of any known structure.They apparently were deposited in the area to protect the bankline from rivenne cutting; it is unclear whetheror not the brick piers are associated with the revetment. Because of its age and lack of archeologicalintegrity, Location 1 does not warrant designation as an archeological site. It does not possess the qualitiesof significance, as defined by the National Register of Historic Places criteria of significance (36 CFR 60.4[a-dQ).

55

CHAPTER VIII

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Archeological field investigations of the Carrollton Bend Revetment project area consisted of thesystematic excavation of 73 auger tests within the downriver 1,075 m (3,526 ft) of the archeological surveyportion of the project area; the judgmental placement of six auger tests within the upriver 610 m (2,000 ft)of the project area; and archeological assessment of Location 1, an irregular alignment of brick piers.Testing within Location 1 included mapping, and the excavation of seven additional auger tests and one 1x 2 m unit. A total of 86 auger tests and 1 excavation unit were placed within the 70 ac project area.

Unit 1, Location 1 was excavated to a depth of I10 cmbd, i.e., approximately 1 m below groundsurface. Unit excavation terminated at that point because secondary deposits of brick, concrete, and asphaltcovered most of the unit floor. An auger test was excavated In the base of the unit to assess the underlyingstrata. The unit contained 10 strata, including strata observed within the auger test. Numerous twentiethcentury and modem artifacts and materials were observed and recovered from the upper seven strata, whichterminated at 140 cmbd. These materials demonstrated that the cultural deposits within Location 1 wereformed after World War II. They apparently were placed in the area to protect the bankline from cutting;they also may be associated with the construction of the nearby Carrollton Bend Revetment. Location 1lacks archeological integrity and research potential and does not warrant an archeological site designation.Location 1 is not a significant cultural resource; no additional archeological Investigation of this location isrecommended.

Finally, no additional non-modern CL'ural resources were located within the survey area. Most ofthe area was disturbed extensively by borrow pit excavaticn, filling of large areas, and revetmentconstruction. In addition, considerable modern alluvium covers most of the area. While the upriver 610 m(2,000 ft) of the area was tested less intensively than the downriver 1,075 m (3,526 ft), the observeddisturbances and the auger tests suggest that no substantive archeological deposits are located in thatupriver area. Based on the collected data, it appears that no potentially significant cultural resources arelocated in the survey area. No additional testing of the two areas assessed in the Carrollton BendRevetment project area are recommended.

56

REFERENCES CITED

Arthur, Stanley Clisby and George Campbell Huchet de Kemion1971 Old Families of Louisiana. Reprint. Claitor's Publishing Division. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Autin, Whitney J.1989 Geomorphic and Stratigraphic Evolution of the Middle Amite River Valley, Southeastern Louisiana.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Autin, Whitney, J. John I. Snead, Roger T. Saucier, Scotu F. Burns, and Bobby J. Miller1990 Current Approach to Quaternary Research in the Lower Mississippi Valley. In Field Guide to the

Mississippi Alluvial Valley Northeast Arkansas and Southeast Missouri, Friends of the PleistoceneSouth-Central Cell 1990, edited by M. J. Guccione and E. M. Rutledge, pp. 23-45, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville.

Autin, Whitney J., Scott F. Burns, Bobby J. Miller, Roger T. Saucier, and John I. Snead1991 Quaternary Geology of the Lower Mississippi River Valley. In Quaternary Nonglacial Geology,

Conterminous U.S., edited by R. B. Morrison, pp. 20-56, The Geology of North America, v. K-2,Geological Society of America, Boulder.

Bauer, Rose Marie1987 Dubreuil Concession and Levee. In Jefferson Parish Historical Markets, compiled and edited by

Henry C. Bezou, pp. 21-28. Laborde Printing Company, New Orleans.

Beavers, Richard C., and Teresia R. Lamb1980 A Level II Archaeological Field Survey and Assessment Program of Pier 4 Location, Greater New

Orleans Mississippi River Bridge, Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, Louisiana. Submitted to theLouisiana Department of Transportation and Development. University of New Orleans.

Berg, Richard C., John P. Kempton, and Amy N. Stecyk1984 Geology for Planning in Boone and Winnebago Counties, Illinois State Geological Survey Circular

No. 531, Champaign, Illinois.

Bezou, Henry C., Monsignor1973 Metairie: A Tongue of Land to Pasture. Pelican Publishing Company. Gretna, Louisiana.

Bouchereau, Alcee1917 Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crops Made In Louisiana (1877-1917). Pelican Steam Book and

Job Printing. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Bouchereau, Louis1877 Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crops Made In Louisiana (1868-1877). Pelican Steam and Job

Printing. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Britsch, Louis D., and Joseph B. Dunbar1990 Geomorphic Investigation of Davis Pond, Louisiana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterway

Experimental Station Technical Report No. GL-90, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WaterwaysExperimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

57

Butler, Benjamin F.1892 Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major General Benjamin F. Butler: Butler's Book.

A. M. Thayer, Boston.

1917 Private and Official Correspondence of Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, During the Period of the CivilWar. The Plimpton Press, Norwood, Massachusetts.

Casey, Powell A.1983 Encyclopedia of Forts, Posts, Named Camps, and Other Military Installations in Louisiana, 1700-

1981. Claitor's Publishing Division. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Cayton, Frank M., compiler1881 Landings on All the Western and Southern Rivers and Bayous.... Woodward, Tieman, and Hale.

St. Louis, Missouri.

Champomier, P. A.1850 Statement of the Sugar Crop Made in Louisiana (1844-1862). Cook, Young, and Company. New

Orleans, Louisiana.

Chase, John Churchill1979 Frenchmen, Desire, Good Children, and Other Streets of New Orleans. Third Edition. Macmillan

Publishing Company. New York, New York.

Chenery, William H.1898 The Fourteenth Regiment of Rhode Island Heavy Artillery (Colored) in the War to Preserve the

Union 1861-1865. Snow & Farnham, Providence.

Clark, John G.1970 New Orleans, 1718-1812: An Economic History. Louisiana State University Press. Bato," Rouge.

Coleman, James M.1982 Deltas - Processes of Deposition and Models for Exploration. International Human Resources

Development Corporation, Boston.

Coleman, James M. and Sherwood M. Gagliano1964 Cyclic Sedimentation in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plains. Transactions of the Gulf Coast

Association of Geological Societies 14:40-67.

Coleman, James M., and Harry H. Roberts1988 Sedimentary Development of the Louisiana Continental Shelf Related to Sea Level Cycles: Part

1 - Sedimentary Sequences. Geo-Marine Letters 8:63-108.

Cornish, Dudley T.1956 The Sable Arm: Negro Troops in the Union Army, 1861-1865. Longmans, Green & Co., New

York.

Craig, Nancy J., Latimore M. Smith, Nelwyn M. Gilmore, Gary D. Lester, and Alanea M. Williams1987 The Natural Communities of Coastal Louisiana Classification and Description. Coastal

Management Division, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge.

Dow, Neal1898 The Reminiscences of Neal Dow. The Evening Express Publishing Company, Portland, Maine.

58

Farrell, Kathleen M.1987 Sedimentodogy and Facies Architecture of Overbank Deposits of the Mississippi River, False River

Region, Louisiana, In Recent Developments in Fluvial Sedimentology, edited by F. G. Ethridge,R. M. Flores, and M, D. Harvey, pp. 11-120, SEPM Special Publication No. 39, Society forSedimentary Geology, Tulsa.

Fisk, Harold N.1947 Fine-grained Alluvial Processes and Their Effects on Mississippi River Activity. Mississippi Rrver

Commission, Vicksburg, Mississippi,

1960 Recent Mississippi River Sedimentation and Peat Accumulation. In Congres Port L'advancementdes Etudes de Stratigraphie et de Geologie du Carbonifere, 4th Heerlen, edited by Van Aelst, pp189-199, Compte rendu, Maastrict, Netherlands.

Foster, Janet1987 Tchoupftoulas Plantation. In Jefferson Parish Historical Markers. compiled and edited by Henry

C. Bezou, pp. 16-18. Laborde Printing Company, New Odeans

Frazier, David E.1967 Recent Deltaic Deposits of the Mississippi River: their Development and Chronology

Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 17:287-315.

1974 Depositional - Episodes: Their Relationship to the Quaternary Stratigraphic Framework of theNorthwestern Portion of the Gulf Basin. Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular74-1, p. 28, Austin.

Gibson, Jon L.1978 Archaeological Survey of the Lower Atchafalaya Region, South Central Louisiana. Submitted by

the University of Southwestern Louisiana Center for Archaeological Studies to the U-S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, New Orleans District.

Goodwin, R. Christopher, William P. Athens, Stephen Hinks, Paul C_ Armstrong, and Jennifer Cohen1990 Cultural Resources Survey of Gretna Phase II Levee Enlargement item, M-99.4 to 95.5-R,

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Submitted by Goodwin & Associates, Inc. to the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, New Orleans District.

Goodwin, R. Christopher, Frederick Dobney, David Moore, Jeffrey Treffinger, Mark Catin, Paul C Armstrong,James Cripps, and Carol Poplin

1987 Evaluation of the National Register Eligibility of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock in OrleansParish, Louisiana. Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., to the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, New Orleans District.

Goodwin, R. Christopher, Paul V. Heinrich, William P. Athens, and Stephen Hinks1991 Overview, Inventory, and Assessment of Cultural Resources in the Louisiana Coastal Zone.

Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Contract SPF Number 25101-90-09to Coastal Management Division Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge.

Goodwin, R. Christopher, Jeffrey Treffinger, Jill-Karen Yakubik, and Paul Armstrong1986 Cultural Resources Survey of West Bank Levee Construction Items, Waggaman to Gretna,

Louisiana. Submitted by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. to the U.S, Army Corps ofErgineers, New Orleans District.

59

Goodwin, R. Christopher, Jill-Karen Yakubik, Peter A. Gendel, Kenneth Jones, Debra Stayner, Cyd H.Goodwin, Galloway W. Selby, and Janice Cooper

1985 Preserving the Past for the Future: A comprehensive Archeological and Historic Site Inventoryof Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Submitted to the Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism.Jefferson Parish Historical Commission, Metairie, Louisiana.

Goodwin, R. Christopher, Jill-Karen Yakubik, and Cyd Heymann Goodwin1983 Elmwood: The Historic Archeology of a Southeastern Louisiana Plantation. Jefferson Parish

Historical Commission. Metairie, Louisiana.

Greene, Jerome A.1982 The Defense of New Orleans, 1718-1900: Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. National Park

Service, Denver.

Haag, William G.1971 Louisiana in North American Prehistory. Melanges 1:1-45. Museum of Geoscience, Louisiana

State University, Baton Rouge.

Harpers WeeklyMay 24, 1862

Heinrich, Paul V.1991 A Sedimentological Explanation for the Distribution of Archaeological Sites in a Meander Belt as

Stated by the "Relict Channel Rule." Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of GeologicalSocieties 41:320.

Huber, Leonard V.1991 New Orleans: A Pictorial History. Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, Louisiana.

Hunt, C. H.1974 Natural Regions of the United States and Canada. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Jenkins, Ned J.1974 Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in the Western Middle Tennessee Valley during the

Transitional Archaic - Woodland Period. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 20:183-193.

Kniffen, Fred B., Hiram F. Gregory, and George A. Stokes1987 The Historic Indian Tribes of Louisiana, From 1542 to the Present. Louisiana State University

Press, Baton Rouge.

Koib, Charles R.1962 Distribution of Soils Bordering the Mississippi River from Donaldsonville to the Head of Passes.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station Technical Report 3-601, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

1963 Sediments forming the Bed and Banks of the Lower Mississippi River and Their Effects on RiverMigration. Sedimentology 2:227-234.

Koib, Charles R., and Roger T. Saucier1982 Engineering Geology of New Orleans. In Geology Under Cities, edited by R. F. Legget, pp. 75-93.

Reviews in Engineering Geology No. 5, Geological Society of America, Boulder.

60

Kolb, Charles R., Fred L. Smith. and Robert C. Silva1975 Pleistocene Sediments of the New Orleans/Lake Pontchartrain Area. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Technical Report S-75-6, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Kolb, Chaie,- R., and Jack R. Van Lopik1966 Depositional Environments of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. In Deltas in Their Geologic

Framework, edited by M. L Shirley and J. R. Ragsdale, pp. 17-62, Houston Geological Society,Houston.

Ledet, Wilson P.1937 The History of the City of Carrollton. Master's Thesis, Tulane University. Special Collections-

Howard-Tilton Library. Tulane University. New Orleans, Louisiana.

1938 The History of the City of Carrollton. In The Louisiana Historical Quarterly 21:220-278. LouisianaHistorical Society, New Orleans.

Lowery, G. H.1974a The Mammals of Louisiana and Its Adjacent Waters. Louisiana State University Press, Baton

Rouge.

1974b Louisiana Birds. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Magill, John1990 The Freeze of 1899. The Historic New Orleans Collection Newsletter 8(4):6-7.

Mah, John A., II1976 The Development of a Town at Carrollton, Louisiana. Master's Thesis, Tulane University.

Louisiana Collection, Howard-Tilton Library. Tulane University. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Matthews, Dayton1983 Soil Survey of Jefferson Parish, Lou;-ýiana. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Alexandria, Louisiana.

McGregor, Charles1900 History of the Fifteenth Regiment New Hampshire Volunteers, 1862-1863. Published by the

Fifteenth Regiment Association.

Mctntire, William G.1958 Prehistoric Indian Settlements of the Changing Mississippi River Delta Coastal Studies Series

No. 1. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

Menn, Joseph Karl1964 The Large Slaveholders of Louisiana - 1860. Pelican Publishing Company. New Orleans,

Louisiana.

Moore, William S.1982 Late Pleistocene Sea Level History. In Uranium Series Disequilibrium: Application to

Environmental Problems, edited by M. Ivanovich and R. S. Harmon, pp. 481-496, Clarendon Press,Oxford, England.

Muller, Jon L1983 The Eoutheast. In Ancient North Americans, edited by Jesse D. Jennings, pp. 373-419. W. H.

Freeman and Company, New York.

61

Neitzel, Robert S., and J. Stephen Perry1978 A Prehistory of Central North Louisiana. Submitted to the Research Institute, Northeast Louisiana

University, Monroe.

Nelson, Lee H.1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. History News, Volume 24, No. 11.

Neuman, Robert W.1984 An Introduction to Louisiana Archaeology. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature1983 North American Stratigraphic Code. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin

67:841-875.

Otvos, Ervin G.1973 Geology of the Mississippi-Alabama Coastal Area and Nearshore Zone, New Orleans Geological

Society 1973 Field Trip. New Orleans Geological Society, New Orleans.

1978 New Orleans-South Hancock Holocene Barrier Island Trends and Origins of Lake Pontchartrain.Transactions Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 28:337-355.

Pearson, Charles E., David B. Kelley, Richard A. Weinstein, and Sherwood M. Gagliano1986 Archaeological Investigations on the Outer Continental Shelf: a Study within the Sabine River

Valley, Offshore Louisiana and Texas. Report for Mineral Management Services, U. S. Departmentof the Interior, New Orleans, COontract No. 14-12-0001-30072.

Penfound, W. T., and E. S. Hathaway1938 Plant Communities in Marsh Lands of Southeastern Louisiana. Ecological Monograph- 8:1-53.

Penland, Shea, John R. Suter, and Ron Boyd1985 Barrier Islands Arcs along Abandoned Mississippi River Deltas. Marine Geology 63:197-233.

Penland, Shea, John R. Suter, and Randolph A. McBride1987 Delta Plain Development and Sea Level History in the Terrebonne Parish Region, Louisiana. In

Coastal Sediments, pp. 1689-1705, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Perrilloux, Edgar A.1945 Carrollton Centennial: 1845-1945. Louisiana Collection, Howard-Tilton Library. Tulane University.

New Orleans, Louisiana.

Phillips, Philip1970 Archeological Survey in the Lower Yazoo Basin, Mississippi, 1949 - 1955. Papers of the Peabody

Museum, Vol. 60. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Quimby, George 1.1951 The Medora Site, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. Anthropological Series 24(2):81-135,

Publication 664, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Reeves, William D.1980 De La Barre: Life of a French Creole Family in Louisiana. Polyanthros. New Orleans, Louisiana.

62

Rivet, Philip G.1977 Railroad Relocation and Adjustment KCS, ICG, SP, and not Railroads Williams Boulevard -

Shrewsbury, Metairie and Jefferson Parishes, Louisiana, A letter report, State Project No, 714-22-50, prepared by the State of Louisiana, Department of Highways.

Saucier, Roger T.1963 Recent Geomorphic History of the Pontchartrain Basin. Louisiana State University Press, Baton

Rouge.

1977 The Northern Gulf Coast during the Farmdalian Substage: a Search for the Evidence. U.S. ArmyEngineers Waterways Experimental Station Miscellaneous Paper Y-77-1, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Shenkel, J. Richard1974 Archaeology of Elmwood Plantation.

Smith, Steven D., Philip G. Rivet, Kathleen M. Byrd, and Nancy Hawkins1983 Louisiana's Comprehensive Archaeological Plan. Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Department

of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Baton Rouge.

South, Stanley1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Springer, J. W.1974 The Bruly St. Martin Site and its implications for coastal settlement in Louisiana. Louisiana

Archaeology 1(1):75-82.

Suter, John R., Henry L Berryhill, Shea Penland1987 Late Quaternary Sea-Level Fluctuations and Depositional Sequences, Southwest Louisiana

Continental Shelf. In Sea Level Fluctuations and Coastal Evolution, edited by S. Nummedal, 0.H. Pikley, and J. D. Howard, pp. 199-222, SEPM Special Publication No. 41, The Society forSedimentary Geology, Tulsa.

Swanson, Betsy1975 Historic Jefferson Parish: From Shore to Shore. Pelican Publishing Company. Gretna, Louisiana.

Swanton, J.1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 137.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Thoede, Henry J.1976 History of Jefferson Parish and Its People. Distinctive Printing Company. (Gretna?], Louisiana.

Townsend, Luther T.1897 History of the Sixteenth Regiment, New Hampshire Volunteers. Published by Henry Johnson &

Luther Townsend, Washington D.C.

Trahan, Larry J.1989 Soil Survey of Orleans Parish, Louisiana. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Alexandria, Louisiana.

Treadwell, Robert C.1955 Sedimentology and Ecology of Southeast Coastal Louisiana. Coastal Studies Institute Technical

Report No. 6, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

63

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers1987 Channel Improvement Data Report, FY 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

Report RCS CELMV-CO-C-4(R 1).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

1850 Seventh Census of the United States, Schedule 2: Productions of Agriculture,

1870 Ninth Census of the United States, Schedule 2: Productions of Agriculture.

Waldo, J. Curtis1879 Illustrated Visitors' Guide to New Orleans. Published by the Author. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Walker, Roger G.1984 Facies Models, Geoscience Canada Reprint Series 1, Geological Association of Canada, Calgary,

Walthall, John A.1980 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Alabama.

Webb, Clarence H., Joel E. Shiner, and E. Wayne Roberts1971 The John Pearce Site (16CD56) A San Patrice Site In Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Bulletin of the

Texas Archeological Society 42:1-49.

Weinstein, Richard A., and Sherwood M. Gagliano1985 The Shifting Deltaic Coast of the Lafourche Country and its Prehistoric Settlement. In The

Lafourche Country: the People and its Prehistoric Settlement, edited by P. D. Uzee, pp. 122-148,Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

Whitbread, Leslie G.1977 Placenames of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana: An Introductory Account. Jefferson Parish Historical

Commission. Metairie, Louisiana.

Wilson, Samuel, Jr.1980 Architecture of Early Sugar Plantations, in Green Fields: Two Hundred Years of Louisiana Sugar.

The Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana. Lafayette, Louisiana.

1987 The Architecture of Colonial Louisiana: Collected Essays of Samuel Wilson, Jr., F.A. L.A. Compiledand edited by Jean M. Farnsworth and Ann M. Masson. Center for Louisiana Studies. Lafayette,Louisiana.

64

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES

Record Group (RG) 77Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Record Group (RG) 94Records of the Adjutant General's Office, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Miller, George L., 1988

MAPS

Saucier, Roger T., and John I. Snead1989 Quaternary Geology of the Lower Mississippi River Valley. In Quaternary Nonglacial Geology,

Conterminous U.S., edited by R. B. Morrison, plate 10, The Geology of North America, vol. K-2,Geological Society of America, Boulder.

Snead, J. I., and R. P. McCulloh1984 Geologic Map of Louisiana. Scale 1:500,000, Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge.

65

APPENDIX I

AUGER TESTS

TR. 2 AT180--

20 . ............

40 - -...........10lYR 4/3 DARK BROWN LOAMY SAND

20-

40 - 7- - - - -

OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDY LOAM- . MOTTLED WITH IOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH

BROWN LOAMY SAND

60-

80-

. IOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDY LOAMLJ100.- INTERLAMINATED WITH 1OYR 4/3 DARKz . BROWN SILT LOAM, 1OYR 4/3 DARK BROWNz SILT AND 1OYR 4/3 DARK BROWN LOAMY

SAND

120-

WATER TABLE

140 - 0 OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN LOAMY SAND

TAR PAPER @ 150CMBS

IOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAM160- MOTTLED WITH 7.5YR 4/4 DARK BROWN SILT

LOAM, LAMINATED WITH ONE MILLIMETERTHICK lOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT

180- VI OYR 4/1 DARK GRAY SILT LOAM

........ 1 OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDY LOAM"1 VI - MOTTLED WITH 1OYR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH

200 .BROWN SANDY LOAM WITH ORGANIC MATTER

TR. 2 AT 18A0 -- . . ... .0 ...... OYR 4/3 DARK BROWN LOAMY SAND

. MOTTLED WITH lOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH

.... ..... BROWN LOAMY SAND AND lOYR 4/6 DARK-- . - -- YELLOWISH BROWN LOAMY SAND

20- ...1OYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDYLOAM

40 .... ..

-iN--:-:: l oYR 4/3 DARK BROWN LOAMY SAND60-

80

Lio 10010YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAM

OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAM

120 kWITH GRANULE QUARTZ GRAVEL AND0 ORGANIC MATER

1OYR 5/4 YELLOWISH BROWN VERY FINE,

vi WELL-SORTED SAND

140-

160- :T_"VI I- 5Y 4/1 DARK GRAY SILT LOAM WITH ORGANIC7 • MATTER

I80

lOYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY WITH

Vy ORGANIC MATTER

200- 10OYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILT LOAM

TR. 6 AT 1

0O1OYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY LOAMMOTTLED WITH 1OYR 4/6 DARK YELLOWISHBROWN SILTY CLAY LOAM

20-/IOYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTY

Ii CLAY MOTTLED WITH 1OYR 4/4 DARK•X YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY CLAY

40-

60- 1OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAYEY SILTII MOTTLED WITH 1OYR 4/6 DARK YELLOWISH

BROWN CLAYEY SILT.

80-RANGIA SHELL @ 85CMBS

10- IOYR 4/3 DARK BROWN SANDY SILT

100S/ lOYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAY

- V MO17LED WITH 1OYR 4/6 DARK YELLOWISHBROWN CLAY

120--

vi lOYR 4/3 DARK BROWN LOAMY SAND

140• IOYR 4/1 DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY MOTTLED

VII WITH lOYR 4/6 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN• ! SILTY CLAY

160 A

IVIIl IOYR 5/1 GRAY SANDY SILT LOAM

180- IOYR 4/1 DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY MOTTLEDIX WITH 1OYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN

SILTY CLAY

X 5Y 5/1 GRAY CLAYEY SILT200

TR. 8 AT 1

0 d 10YR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY

SZ 10YR 5/2 GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAYII I MARBLED WITH 10YR 5/6 YELLOWISH BROWN

SILTY CLAY20

40- A

10YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAMI IMOTTLED WITH 10YR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH

60- BROWN SILTY LOAM WITH OCCASIONALLAYERS OF 10YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN

-, YSILTY CLAY LOAM

80- /

t'J"

1OYR 3/3 DARK BROWN VERY FINE, WELL-z 10 - SORTED SAND_z.

I--

V 10' 94/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAM120- -

10YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAY140- MOTTLED WITH 10YR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH

BROWN SILTY CLAY MIXED WITH ORGANIC

* . VlI-I* lOYR 5/1 GRAY SANDY LOAM MIXED WITHI OYR 5/1 GRAY SAND160 V,

"" .. lOYR 4/1 DARK GRAY CLAYEY SILT MARBLED180- VIII WITH 1OYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY CLAYEY SILT

WITH ORGANIC MATTER

200 I

TR. 10 AT 1

0 1OYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY CLAYEY SILT WITHORGANIC MATTER

lOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAYEY SILT

20-

40-

OYR 3/3 DARK BROWN SILTY CLAY WITH

ORGANIC MATTER

60

80-

zo 100zZ 1OYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY WITH

IV- ORGANIC MATTER

120

140

160 IOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN SILT LOAMMOTTLED WITH 1OYR 4/3 BROWN SILT LOAMGRADING INTO A lOYR 4/1 DARK GRAY VERYFINE, WELL-SORTED LOAMY SAND

180 .

... YR 4/1 DARK GRAY LOAMY SAND

200

TR. 16 AT IA

2• IOYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY

L 20--tl L 1 IOYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTF-

z ILOAM MIXED WITH 1OYR 3/3 DARK BROWNLit

O 'SILT LOAM

- 40-

OYR 5/2 GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAM MIXED

SIWITH 1OYR 5/3 BROWN SILT LOAM

60 LARGE ROOT

ABANDONED

TR. 16 AT 1B

0- xI 10YR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY

c-uiL 20-

,z ,F.' IOYR 3/3 DARK BROWN SILT LOAM

z L I ' f i t40-I 40 - , , 1

:. I1 OYR 5/6 YELLOWISH BROWN SILT LOAM

60- lOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAMMOTFLED WITH 1OYR 4/6 DARK YELLOWISHBROWN SILT LOAM

LARGE ROOTABANDONED

TR. 16 AT 1C

01 -t "I 1oYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT

LOAM

20- -

10YR 3/3 DARK BROWN SILT LOAM

40.

60 10YR 3/3 DARK BROWN SANDY LOAMMOTTLED WITH 10YR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISHBROWN SANDY LOAM AND 10YR 3/6 DARK

----- YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY LOAM

80 -T IV 1OYR 3/3 DARK BROWN SILT LOAM LAMINATEDWITH 10YR 3/3 DARK BROWN SILT

V 10YR 4/6 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN LOAM

;100

- - 10YR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN SILT LOAM

L=

120

140--

-4- 2.5Y 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAMv ' MOTTLED WITH 1OYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH

160 BROWN SILT LOAM

180

-V! 5Y 4/1 DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY

200 -

TR. 16 AT 2

0

207

S-- OYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILT LOAM

40-

1OYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT60LOAM

-4

80 1 OYR 3/3 DARK BROWN SILT LOAMC)80j-

100

z

IOYR 4/3 BROWN SANDY LOAM LAMINATEDIV WITH 1OYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN

o - LOAM AND 1OYR 4/6 DARK YELLOWISH!20 •BROWN SILT LOAM

140

SV lOYR 3/3 DARK BROWN SILT LOAM160

180 -

- VII 5Y 5/1 GRAY SILT LOAM

200

TR. 17 AT 1

/ ,--• loYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN =LT,'- 1 CLAY WITH ORGANIC MATTER

20

40-i 0YR 4/1 DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY MOTTLED

WITH IOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN"SILTY CLAY GRADING INTO A IOYR 4/2 DARK

"60 GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAY MOTTLED WITH4- I lOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY

CLAY WITH ORGANIC MATTER

2-!

zS100H

z 10YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAY

// I MOTTLED WITH IOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH- BROWN SILTY CLAY

120- '/ , lOYR 4/1 DARK GRAY CLAYEY SILT MOTTLED

-- iv, WITH 1OYR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWNCLAYEY SILT

1 4 0 -i

160 5Y 4/2 OLIVE GRAY LOAMY SAND MIXED WITH2.5Y 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN LOAMY SAND

180 . . .....

2VI ! 4/1 DARK GRAY SILT LOAM

200-

TR. 17 AT 2

-7 /10/ OYR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN

CLAYEY SILT WITH ORGANIC MATTER

20o1

20-

40/11 1OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAYEY SILT

60-

80-j ASN1 loYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAYEY SILT

, HII LAMINATED WITH IOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH

_/ BROWN SILTZ,LLJo 00 - ,'

0100~ /AII - IOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAY

SVMOTTLED WITH 1OYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISH

120 /-/' BROWN SILTY CLAY

140-/1 lOYR 4/3 DARK BROWN CLAYEY SILT MOTTLED

I K V WITH 1oYR 3/4 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN/ / CLAYEY SILTSI !OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAM

160- V I MOTTLED WITH 1OYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISHBROWN SILT LOAM AND 1OYR 4/6 DARKYELLOWISH BROWN SILT LOAM10lYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN CLAYFEY SILT

180 VI 'I MOTTLED WITH IOYR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISHBROWN CLAYEY SILT

OYR 3/1 VERY DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY WITH

VilI ORGANIC MATERIAL

200 OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTY CLAY

TR. 18 AT 1 10YR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT0 LOAM MIXED WITH 1OYR 3/2 VERY DARK

I GRAYISH BROWN CLAYEY SILT WITH CHERT--F- GRAVEL, RANGIA SHELL AND METAL

FRAGMENTS

20

". 2.5Y 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT LOAM0 L 40MIXED WITH 1OYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN

SILT LOAM

00z_

80- ...

5Y 4/2 OLIVE GRAY LOAMY SAND

1 ABANDONED DUETO CAVING

100-

TR. 18 AT 2

- -YR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILT201 LOAM

40- -

- - 10YR 4/3 DARK BROWN LOAMY SANDMOTTLED WITH 10YR 5/3 BROWN LOAMY

... SAND

60 1 0 IOYR 3/3 DARK BROWN SILT LOAM MOTTLED--*WITH 1 OYR 4/6 DARK YELLOWISH BROWN SILT

LOAM1V lOYR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN SANDY LOAM

...... WITH ORGANIC MATTER80- 10YR 4/2 DARK GRAYISH BROWN LOAMY SAND

MOTTLED WITH 10YR 4/4 DARK YELLOWISHI BROWN LOAMY SAND

-I '10YR 3/2 VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN SILTzIw LOAM LAMINATED WITH 10YR 3/2 VERY DARK100 - GRAYISH BROWN SILT

SY 4/1 DARK GRAY SILT LOAM MOTTLED WITH7.5YR 4/4 DARK BROWN SILT LOAM

7LF 'I --- F.

120 - -

140-

5Y 4/1 DARK GRAY SILT LOAM LAMINATED/VIII" WITH 5Y 4/1 DARK GRAY LOAMY SAND160

180-

200-

APPENDIX !1

SCOPE OF SERVICES

REVISED SCOPE OF SERVICESCONTRACT DACW29-90-D-0018

DELIVERY rORDER 11

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF CARROLLTON BEND REVETMFNT,MISSISSIPPI RIVER M-105.7 TO 101.7-L

1. Introduction. This delivery order calls for a cultural resource investivaiion of the eastbank of the Mississippi River between Miles 105.7 and 101.7-L in Jefferson and OrleansParishes, Louisiana (Enclosure 1, Hydrographic Survey 1983-1985, Chart 49). Theproject reach combines both constructed and unconstructed rights of way of Carrollton BendRevetment (Enclosure 2, File No. 1-127, Charts 42 and 43). The work requires a literaturesearch specific to the entire project reach (Miles 105.7 to 101.7-L), survey ofapproximately 0.7 miles within the reach, inventory and assessment of the significance of allsites and structures within survey areas, and preparation of comprehensive draft and finalreports of investigation for the study. The contract period for this delivery order is 170 days.

2. Project Context. This delivery order Is one element of a much larger study of Impactsto cultural resources on the Mississippi River natural levee. The study has undergone threerecognizable stages of data collection since its start in 1976. The specialized nature of thesurvey environment heavily influences data collection strategies. The batture is a microzone ofthe natural levee, artificially segregated by man-made levees. It absorbs exaggeratedalluviation once distributed across the natural levee into the backswamp. It is constantlyreshaped by bank caving, highwater scour, point bar accretion, crevasses, hurricanes, andpoint specific scour from vessel and barge docking, and public and private construction. Thecharacter of the baiture also varies with the specific channel reach.

In response to this environment, the most effective archeological method used to date integratesthree key tools: the direct historical method for forecasting the presence or absence of sites(employing historic maps and detailed courthouse record searches); application of historicmaps and the principles of fluvial geomorphology to trace channel movement over time; andapplication of deep testing methods (augering and trench excavation) during the survey phase.The study has collected data on nineteenth century levee building, the sugar and rice industries,wharves and landings, boatyards, the distribution of both large and small landholders from theeighteenth century to the present, and data on impacts to sites. Project schedules controlselection of survey reaches, which usually include multiple construction items and requireconsideration of future maintenance construction. The emphasis is upon comprehensivearcheology in the reach rather than on clearing a specific project. Each new Investigation notonly adds to the growing data base of prehistoric and historic site Information but also has thepotential to refine future work through Improved field n'.4thods and more specific backgroundsources.

3. Description of the Study Area. The project reach Is located on the east bank of theMississippi River in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, within urban New Orleans. The reachhas sustained considerable reworking from industrial use, borrowing of fill, and construction.Approximately 2.3 miles of the reach have been revetted, and both channel movement and leveesetbacks have destroyed former landings, wharves and city blocks along the cutbank of theriver. The segment to be surveyed is an extension of earlier revetment construction (Table 1).The remainder of the reach requires documentary research and landuse reconstruction to assist

future impact assessment during maintenance construction to the levee, revetment, and the USArmy Corps of Engineers reservation.

4. Description of the Construction Project. The Corps of Engineers proposes toconstruct an upstream extension to the concrete mattress revetment already in place atCarrollton Bend. The reach will be stabilized with a continuous artculated concrete mattresswhich is mechanically laid from the Low Water Reference Plane (LWRP) to a point severalhundred feet into the river channel. To prepare for revetting, a 200 foot wide corridoradjacent to the bankline will be cleared of all vegetation and graded to a standard slope. Slopegrading will remove the upper bankline within a 100 foot wide corridor adjacent to the edge ofbank. The grading distance will vary in areas where caving has occurred. Any culturalresource within 200 horizontal feet of the bankline and within 10 vertical feet of the groundsurface has a high potential for being destroyed. Surficial resources further than 200 feetlandward of the bankline may be subject to disturbance from the movement of heavy equipment,but buried sites will remain intact.

5. Study Requirements. The work to be performed by the Contractor will be divided intothree phases: Literature Search and Records Review; Intensive Survey and Site Assessment;and Data Analysis and Report Preparation.

a. Phase 1: Literature Search and Records Review. The Contractor shall commence, uponwork item award, with a literature, map, and records review specific to the project reach(M-105.7 to 101.7-L). While some general information on a parish, state or national levelmay be required to explain cultural, economic and environmental trends active in the projectreach, this report will focus on the history of human use of the entire project reach up to thepresent time. The goals of this review are five-fold and all five are of equal importance. First,this review will identify all existing, former and probable sites within the reach. Second,this review will collect and interpret site formation and destruction information (settlement,landuse, and land disturbance data) in a balanced manner for all periods of occupation includingthe present. In particular, consider what earlier revetment construction would havedestroyed. Third, this review will be sufficiently complete and detailed to allow its applicationby any project in the vicinity to forecast all sites in the project reach, their history anddestruction. Fourth, the results of this review will guide the selection of survey techniquesand selection of locations requiring additional work to locate potentially buried sites. Fifth,this review will provide the background context by which the significance of all sites in thereach may be assessed. It will not be acceptable to conduct specific background research onlyafter a site is found.

At a minimum, the literature and records review will establish the distribution of prehistoricand historic sites in the region and their proximity to the study area; identify previouslyrecorded sites, standing structures, National Register of Historic Places properties andNational Landmarks in or in close proximity to the project reach; provide national, regionaland local context for assessing the historical. architectural and archeological significance of allsites and structures located in the project reach; and predict resources which can be expectedto be located within the project reach. Economic and social trends, channel migration, majornatural events, and all previous construction affecting land use patterns and the state ofpreservation of predicted resources will be analyzed and presented in specific terms of theproject reach.

This phase shall include but not be limited to review of historic maps, the State Archeologist'ssite and standing structure files, the National Register of Historic Places, geological andgeomorphological data, archeological reports, ethnohistoric records, historic archives, census

records, sugar and rice reports, and Land Office or courthouse records. Interpretation oflanduse during any given period should not rely on maps alone, but should incorporate as manyrelevant sources as possible to prove or disprove an hypothesis. Where archival data can notbe found, answers to research questions will be sought through interviews of knowledgeablepersons.

Specific questions to answer:1. is there likelihood of finding sites if revetment segments already in place are repaired?2. at what depth can structural remains be expected beneath the levee on the US Army Corps ofEngineers reservation?3. there are 19 pre-1945 shipwrecks recorded in the NOED shipwreck data base for miles101 and 107.1-L; the Southport Steam Ship Wharf and two former ferry landings are locatedin the study easement (Walnut Street and Henry Clay); their locations correlate roughly with15 data base entries; multiple wrecks were observed at the Walnut Street location in the1960s; identify and map all other areas, such as wharves and landings, in the study easementwhere ships, barges and ferries can be expected to have been abandoned.4. what is the history of residential use of the batture in the upstream segment of the reach?5. identify and map areas where willow framed and asphalt mats still exist.

b. Phase 2: Intensive Survey and Site Assessment.The contractor shall complete the survey and site assessment phase of thisproject no later than 19 June 1992.

The survey methodology must take overburden into account. An augering regime must beincluded to compensate for an unknown amount of alluviation, usually not more that 1-2 m indepth. Sample augering first is recommended to judge the amount of overburden in variouslocations of the survey reach. Shovel testing alone may not be adequate to inventory all sites.

The Technical Representative will be informed ahead of time of the testing schedule of all sites.

All holes will be backfilled.

An intensive survey is a comprehensive, systematic, and detailed physical examination of aproject item for the purpose of locating and inventorying all cultural resources within theimpact zone. The survey will be performed within the context of an explicit research design,formulated in recognition of all prior investigations in the study area and surrounding region,and will include subsurf.•ce testing and evaluation of identified resources against the NationalRegister of Historic Places criteria ef significance (36 CFR 60.4). The survey will provideadequate information to seek determinations of eligibility from the Keeper of the NationalRegister, and will innumerate project effects on each resource located within the study area.The evaluation will be conducted utilizing current professional standards and guidelinesincluding, but not limited to :

the National Park Service's draft standards entitled, "How to Apply the NationalRegister Criteria for Evaluation", dated June 1, 1982;

the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and HistoricPreservation as published in the Federal Register on September 29, 1983;

Louisiana's Comprehunsive Archaeological Plan, dated October 1, 1983;

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Section 106 Update/3 entitled,"Manual of Mitigation Measures (MOMM)", dated October 12, 1982.

The survey shall be an intensive pedestrian investigation augmented by systematic subsurfacetesting. Maximum transect width will not exceed 20 meters. The Contractor will includesample augering in the investigation methodology to 1) establish the probable depth of formerliving surfaces and 2) to locate buried sites or cultural strata indicated by literature and mapresearch or to assess the size and significance of sites located in the bankline.

The areas surveyed and all sites located within project boundaries will be recorded (in ink) toscale on the appropriate 7.5 minute quadrangle and aerial mosaic project maps. The quadranglemaps will be used to illustrate site forms (see below). The project maps will be returned tothe Technical Representative by 19 June 1992.

All sites will be sufficiently tested using shovel, auger or other excavation techniques todetermine and record site size, depth of deposit, stratigraphy, cultural association, function,approximate date of occupation, condition., and significance. Site boundaries, test excavationunits at sites (including test pits, shovel tests, auger intervals, backhoe trenches, etc.) andactivity areas will be measured and mapped to scale. All scaled field maps will accuratelyreference grid locations in terms of levee stations or range markers in close proximity to theillustrated work area. The actual elevation (NGVD) of all sub. '- e sites, the top of bank, andtop and bottom of cultural strata will be determined and mappeo.

The Contractor will fill out and file state site forms with the Office of the Louisiana StateArcheologist and cite the resulting state-assigned site numbers in all draft and final reports ofthis investigation. The Contractor will submit updated state site forms to the State Archeologistfor all previously discovered sites within the project reach. These forms will correctpreviously filed information and summarize what is known of each resource as a result of thisinvestigation. One unbound copy of each site or standing structure form will be submitted tothe COR with the draft report.

All standing structures located in the survey area will be identified by function, dated anddescribed using standard terminology of formal and/or vernacular architecture, as appropriateto each structure. Each standing structure will be recorded (using a simplified, standardizedformat selected by the Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation), accompanied by aminimum of three, clear, black and white photographs showing front, back and side views ofthe structure. The Contractor will determine whether subsurface features are present. Ifpresent, the structure and all features shall be treated as a site, which shall be mapped andrecorded on State of Louisiana site forms. The Contractor shall assess the significance of allstanding structures using information collected during the survey and literature search phasesof this work item.

c. Phase 3: Data Analyses and Report Preoaration. All survey and testing data will beanalyzed using currently acceptable scientific methods. The Contractor shall catalog allartifacts, samples, specimens, photographs, drawings, etc., utilizing the format currentlyemployed by the Office of the Louisiana State Archeologist. The catalog system will include siteand provenience designations.

All literature, map search, field and laboratory data will be integrated to produce a single,graphically illustrated, scientifically acceptable draft report discussing the pre>.;ct reach as awhole. Data integration requires use and application of all data collected to interpretresources, their setting, formation, destruction and significance. All sites located within the

reach will be related in text and tabular form to the appropriate construction item(s) foraccurate future reference. Project impacts on all cultural resources located and/or tested bythis study will be assessed. The Contractor shall provide justification of the rationale used anda detailed explanation of why each resource does or does not meet the National Registersignificance criteria (36 CFR 60.4). For each resource recommended as eligible to theNational Register and assessed to be impacted by construction, the Contractor shall recommendspecific mitigation alternatives. Inferential statements and conclusions will be supported byfield, map or archival data. It will not be sufficient to make significance recommendationsbased solely upon assumed site condition, artifact content, or the presence or absence offeatures.

All data collected will be reported. The final report will fully describe how data were collected.The final report shall include maps of every site showing locations of shovel tests, test units,auger holes, trenches, artifact distributions, activity areas and features. Each map will tie thesite shown into a permanent bench mark.

6. Reports.a. Monthly Progress Reports. One copy of a brief and concise statement of progress

shall be submitted each month throughout the duration of the delivery order. These reports,which may be in letter form, should summarize all work performed, information gained, andproblems encountered during the preceding month. A concise statement and graphicpresentation of the Contractor's assessment of the monthly and cumulative percentage of totalwork completed by task shall be included each month. The monthly report should also notedifficulties, if any, in meeting the contract schedule. If sites are discussed, a map illustratingtheir locations and sizes should accompany the monthly report. The preferred map base isthe hydrographic series or a project aerial mosaic.

b. Draft and Final Reports (Phases 1.2. and 3 ). Five copies of a draft reportintegrating all phases af this investigation will be submitted to the COR for review andcomment 60 days after the date of the order.

An estimate of the acreage surveyed for this project will be cited in the report introduction.

The draft and final reports shall include all data and documentation required by 36 CFR 60-63to prepare requests for Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Placesfor those sites recommended by the Contractor as significant. For each significant culturalresource, the Contractor shall recommend appropriate mitigation procedures which areappropriate to the site or structure, its physical setting and condition.

These written r. 3orts shall follow ;he format set forth in MIL-STD-847A with the followingexceptions: 1) separate, soft, durable, wrap-around covers will be used instead of self covers;2) page size shall be 8-1/2 x 11 inches with a 1-1/2-inch binding margin and 1-inchmargins on all other edgns; 3) the editorial policy and style guide of the Society for AmericanArchaeology (1983) will be applied to the report text, citations and References Cited. Spellingshall be in accordance with the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, dated January1973.

The, ý,oo;y of each report shall include the following: 1) Introduction to the study and study area;2) environmental setting; 3) review and evaluation of previous archeological investigations;4) distribution of prehistoric and historic settlement in the study area; 5) research design; 6)description of field and laboratory methodology, sta4,ement of project objectives, and analysis ofthe effectiveness of the methods; 7) data analyses and cultural material inventories; 8) data

interpretation; 9) integration of archeological and historical data; 10) conclusion; 11) datarecovery recommendations for significant sites or structures; 12) references cited; and 13)appendices. The scope of service will be included as an appendix to all draft and final reports.The transcripts of all interviews will be provided in an appendix as will data and profiles fromall borings and/or backhoe trench profiles c"ollected during the field phase of this study.

The COR will provide all review comments to the Contractor within 45 days after receipt of thedraft reports (105 days after the date of the order). Upon receipt of the review comments,the Contractor shall incorporate or resolve all comments with the approval of the COR andsubmit one copy of the final draft for final review within 135 days of the date of the order.Upon appwv,!, the C,()72~dLutr will submit une reproducible master copy and 40 bound copiesof each report of investigation, and all separate appendices to the COR within 170 days afterthe date of the order.

In order to preclude vandalism, the draft and final reports shall not contain specific locationsof archeological sites.

7. Disposal of Records and Artifacts. All records, photographs, artifacts, and othermaterial data recovered under the terms of this delivery order shall be recorded and catalogedin a manner compatible with those systems utilized by the Louisiana SHPO and by State andFederal agencies which store archeological data. They shall be held and maintained by theContractor until completion of the delivery order. Final disposition of the artifacts and recordswill be in accord with applicable Federal and State laws. Unless otherwise specified, artifactswill be returned to the landowner or permanently housed with the Louisiana Division ofArchaeology and Historic Preservation or in a repository selected by the State Archeologist.The Principal Investigator shall inform the COR in writing when the transfer of data has beencompleted and shall forward to the COR a catalog of items entered into curation. The location ofany notes, photographs or artifacts which are separated from the main collections will also bedocumented. Presently existing private archeological collections from the project area whichare used in data analyses will remain in private ownership. The Contractor shall beresponsible for delivery of the analyzed archeological materials to the individual landowners,the Louisiana SHPO's office, or any other repository designated by the Government followingacceptance of the final report. All artifacts to be permanently curated will be cleaned ,stabilized, labeled, cataloged on typed State curation forms, and p.aced in sturdy bags and boxeswhich are labeled with site, excavation unit or survey collection unit provenience.

TABLE 1

REVETMENT HYDRD CNSTRITEM RIVER MILE RANGQES C CHART EY .XCarrollton Bend 105.7-105.2-L U-75-U-65 49 ? excavate 6 auger

tests along atransect, 100 ftlandward ofbankline (LWRP*)

105.2-104.5-L U-65-U-25 49 1992 survey corridorfrom LWRP toriverside toe oflevee

104.7-102.5-L U-25-D-70 49 1884- constructed; no1973 survey required;

assess in lit search

102.5-101.5-L D-70-D-95 49 ? no right-of-entry;assess in lit search

*LWRP refers to Low Water Reference Plane, illustrated on Mississippi River HydrographicSurvey Charts 1983-1985